HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.6548 and 8790 of 2008 Date: 16-11-2011 Criminal Petition No.6548 of 2008: Between Vinod Goel … Petitioner/Accused No.7 and State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO of Ponduru P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad … Respondent/Complainant Criminal Petition No.8790 of 2008: Between Satish Kumar Varma … Petitioner/Accused No.3 and The State of A.P. Rep. by the Inspector of Police, J.R.Puram Circle, The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent/Respondent Potoju Sanyasi Rao … Respondent/De facto complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.6548 and 8790 of 2008 Common Order: Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.7; Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the petitioner– accused No.3; and Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6548 of 2008 is accused No.7 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8790 of 2008 is accused No.3 in C.C.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, Visakhapatnam district. They filed these two petitions for quashing the proceedings against them in the aforesaid criminal case. Hence, both these petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 3. The offences alleged against both these petitioners are those punishable under Sections 304-A and 286 read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884. 4. Accused No.7 is stated to be the Managing Director of a concern called You One Maharia, which obtained the quarry lease initially. This You One Maharia concern is said to have sublet the quarry to the accused 8 and 9 in the case for a period of one year and they, in turn, sublet the quarry to M/s. Anishka Engineering and Constructions. Accused No.3 is said to be the Project Manager of You One Maharia Company. 5. The charge-sheet allegations would show that the accused 7 and 3 i.e., the petitioners in these two petitions along with the other accused have dealt with the quarry lease in a manner contrary to law and ultimately, the quarry went into the hands of the accused 8 and 9, who have no licence or authority to secure explosives for the purpose of works in the quarry. It is stated that because of this negligence, a blast occurred and three persons died in the quarry. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions have argued that the petitioners are in no way connected with the offences under Sections 304-A and 286 of IPC and also under Section 9- B of the Explosives Act, 1884, inasmuch as they are in no way connected with the allegations made or facts in issue. 7. It may be noted that the offence under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 deals with the act of using explosives unauthorisedly. The petitioner-accused No.7 being the Managing Director and the other petitioner-accused No.3 being the Project Manager of You One Maharia concern can be held responsible on the allegations for allowing unauthorized explosives to be used in the quarry for the purpose of blasting by unauthorized persons. Of course, whether these allegations in the charge-sheet are ultimately true or not, have to be decided by the trial Court on evidence or in any application filed before it which is permitted under law. Thus, the guilt or innocence of the petitioners becomes a disputed question of fact and cannot be decided in these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, both these petitions are dismissed, leaving the matter to be decided by the trial Court. It shall be open for the petitioners to work out their remedies before the trial Court. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. 16th November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.6548 and 8790 of 2008 (Common Order) 16th November, 2011. (Ak)