IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3281 of 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. Rajnandan Yadav, Son of Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of Village Gangaur, PS Harilakhi, District Madhubani, at present Dean, Students Welfare Officer, L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. 2. Narendra Choudhary, Son of Liladhar Choudhary, Resident of Village Sangaura, PS Katra, District Muzaffarpur, at present Executive Engineer, L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. 3. Ugranath Jha, Proctor, L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21118 of 2001 Mira Rani, Wife of Shri Nageshwar Prasad, Resident of 12 Shrotri Line, Kaidirabad, PS & District Darbhanga, at present working as Reader in the Department of Psychology, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No. 3281 of 1999) For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. A.P.P. (In Cr.Misc. No. 21118 of 2001) For the Petitioner : Mr. Shikha Srivastava Mr. Suresh Prasad Sinha Mr. Uday Chand Prasad Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. A.P.P. **** Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3281 of 1999 dt.09-08-2011 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge to consider whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 764 of 1998, disposed of on 16.11.1998 relating to the case of the Registrar of Lalit Narain Mithila University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’), Darbhanga would be applicable to the case of the four petitioners in these two applications. 2. Lakshman Prasad Sharma, the Registrar of the University along with the Dean, Students Welfare Officer, the Executive Engineer, Lalit Narain Mithila University (Civil Engineering), the Proctor of the University, Ugranath Jha and Meera Rani, the then Girls’ Hostel Superintendent have been made accused in a case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. While considering the case of Lakshman Prasad Sharma, the learned Single Judge has referred to the facts of the case in detail. The facts are not disputed by either parties. This Court will briefly indicate those facts. Sunita Kumari (informant) and Archana Kumari (deceased) were studying in the University and were residing in Kamla hostel. On 15.7.1996, Archana Kumari put her wet clothes for drying on an iron wire which lead to her Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3281 of 1999 dt.09-08-2011 3 sustaining an electric shock. She was separated from the wire by her friend by throwing a wooden stick on the wire. The young lady was taken to the hospital in an unconscious stage where she died. The fact that there was a leakage, which led to an electric current going through the iron wire was brought to the notice of the hostel Superintendent, Dean, Students Welfare Officer and finally to the Registrar both orally and in writing. Apparently the Registrar of the University had asked the girls to inform the Hostel Superintendent to take steps for correcting the defect. 4. In the facts aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has interpreted the law and considered the provisions of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. While interpreting the law, the Court has relied on the judgment of Rangawalla Vs. Maharashtra State (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1616). This Court will refer to the facts and law laid down in the aforesaid judgment to bring home the findings reached by us. 5. The appellant before the Supreme Court, Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla was the manager and working partner of a factory which was licensed to store 455 litres of turpentine, 455 litres of varnish and 4,000 gallons of paint. Hatim Tasduq was the person Incharge of operation in the factory. The manager had converted the factory from the cold process of manufacturing dry paints to a process of manufacturing wet paints by heating. On 20.4.1962, when the process was going on, the rosin was melted on one burner. After sometime lime was added and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3281 of 1999 dt.09-08-2011 4 whole thing was boiled for half an hour. Thereafter the burner was extinguished and the barrel in which the rosin was melted was allowed to cool. The process began at 4 p.m. and finally the liquid was put into a barrel. It appears from the facts when the liquid was poured into a barrel, the mixture began to froth, which resulted in over flow out of the barrel and because of the heat, varnish and turpentine, which were stored at a short distance caught fire resulting in death of seven persons. 6. The Apex Court while considering whether the appellant would be liable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the appellant allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it might be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of burners in the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out. The Apex Court concluded that Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code requires causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act, which means that the death must be direct or proximate result of the rash negligent act of Hatim. The Court further went on to hold that the direct or proximate fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of Hatim. The Court further hold that Hatim was responsible for not allowing the liquid to cool before pouring it into the barrel. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3281 of 1999 dt.09-08-2011 5 the Court set aside the conviction and sentence as far as the appellant Rangawalla was concerned. 7. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the Registrar of the University was not directly responsible for any act which caused the death of the unfortunate girl. 8. Similarly, this Court holds as far as the Dean, Students Welfare Officer, the Executive Engineer and Proctor of the University i.e. the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 3281 of 1999 are concerned, they would be covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge, as this Court cannot hold that they were indirectly concerned in getting the electric wire repaired. It is pointed out by the counsel for the State in the order of the learned Single Judge that Narendra Kumar Choudhary has been described as the Executive Engineer, Electricity. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has specifically stated at paragraph 12 that the petitioner no. 2 is the Incharge, Building, P.W.D. This aspect of the matter may be determined by the Court below who would also need to examine whether the fault in the electric wire was brought to his notice or not. However, as far as petitioner Meera Rani (Cr. Misc. No. 21118 of 2001) is concerned, she was posted at the relevant time as hostel Superintendent. The fact that a complaint was made to her seems not to be in dispute as mentioned by the learned Single Judge. This Court, therefore, holds that she was directly responsible for not getting the electric wire repaired, and as such, the Court does not Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3281 of 1999 dt.09-08-2011 6 find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance dated 2.8.1997, passed in L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 100 of 1996, by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga as far as Meera Rani is concerned.. The application on her behalf is dismissed. 9. However, the order of cognizance, as far as the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3281 of 1999 are concerned, passed in L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 100 of 1996, by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga is hereby, quashed subject to what has been observed in the order with respect to Narendra Kumar Choudhary. 10. The application on behalf of petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 3281 of 1999 is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J:- I agree. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 9th of August, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)