IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11678 OF 2010 Between:- Vemula Shekhar …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11678 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.77 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jagityal, Karimnagar District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the State. 3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the Village Revenue Officer of Mothe village, police registered a case in Cr.No.155 of 2009 against the petitioner/A-4 and three others and after investigation filed a charge sheet for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 IPC, Section 9-B(1)(b) of the Explosive Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and the same was taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.77 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jagityal. According to the prosecution, on 23-07-2009 at 05-30 P.M., one Severam blasted the explosives at Gangothri Metal Industries Crushing Machine located on the outskirts of Mothe village without taking any precautionary measures for crushing the stones, resulting in severe injuries to labourers viz., Rakesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar and subsequently Rakesh Kumar died while he was being shifted to Government Area Hospital, Jagityal and Vijay Kumar was referred to MGM Hospital, Warangal. The prosecution alleges that A-1 is the lessee, A-2 is the supplier of explosive material, A-3 is the managing partner and A-4 is the owner of Gangothri Metal Industries Crushing Machine, located in Sy.No.107/1 on the outskits of Mothe village. A-4 took the partnership from the original owner by name Kokkula Gangadhar, who operated the industry from 23-06-2008 till 27-01-2009 and later from 28- 01-2009, A-1 has been running the business. It is further alleged that neither Kokkula Gangadhar nor A-1 was having any valid licence or permit to use the explosive materials and A-2 was also not having any valid licence to supply the explosive material. A-3 is stated to be in charge of supervision of the operations. It is alleged that on 23-07-2009 as usual on a phone call from A-3, A-2 brought the explosive material and A-3 handed over the same to A-1, who used the said material for blasting the operations, resulting in death of one labourer and severe injuries to another. 4. The main contention of the petitioner/A-4 is that, even as per the averments in the charge sheet, A-4 took the partnership deed from the original owner Kokkula Gangadhar and ran the industry up to 27-01-2009 and as the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 23-07- 2009, A-4 cannot be fastened with any liability. The charge sheet would disclose that A-3 and A-4 are the managing partners of the industry and A-3 is supervising the operations and A-2 is the supplier of the explosive material and A-1 actually carried on the operation. The copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C also would disclose that A-4 and A-3 are the owners of the unit. It appears that Kokkula Gangadhar’s name was removed w.e.f. 28-01-2009 and thereafter in his place A-4 was inducted into the partnership. Thus, as per the contents of the charge sheet and also the statements of the witnesses examined during investigation as on the date of the offence i.e., 23-07-2009, A-3 and A-4 were both running the unit. The charge sheet further alleges that they were not having valid licence or permit to run the unit and A-2 was not having any valid licence or permit to supply explosives to A-3 and A-4. The allegations in the charge sheet prima facie show that the ingredients of the alleged offences are attracted even with regard to petitioner/A-4. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations, however, cannot be gone into in the present proceedings and it is a matter to be ascertained after evidence is adduced during the course of trial. 5. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and in view of the specific allegation of the alleged offences even against the petitioner/A-4, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/A-4. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Lrkm.