THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6918 OF 2008 Date: 11.11.2011 Between: Rajeshwar Gupta …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., through S.H.O., Armoor P.S., Nizamabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6918 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.140 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad District (trial court). He filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the aforesaid case against him. The offence alleged against him is one punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution version is that parents-in-law of the de facto complainant and one buffalo came into contact with the live service wire fixed to the poultry farm of one Md.Haroon who is the accused No.1 in the case and died of electrocution. The charge sheet allegations in substance show that the petitioner herein i.e. Rajeshwar Gupta who earlier worked as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation), Perkit in the concerned wing of the electricity transmission company permitted the accused No.1 to have service connection running over 200 meters without the support of necessary poles and that resulted in the fall of wire to the ground level and that caused electrocution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner cannot in any way be held responsible for the electrocution as he was transferred by the date of the offence. This contention may apparently sound forceful but what should be noted is that the version of the police investigating officer is that it was such permission which resulted in fixing of service wire from the main pole running over a distance of 200 meters without any supporting poles in between and that was the cause for the accident. The further plea of the prosecution is that granting that permission itself is a negligent act. I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter as it involves disputed questions of fact. Having regard to the above allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case of interfering under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that it shall be always open for the petitioner to raise all his pleas before the trial court and the trial court shall dispose of the matter without being influenced in any manner by this order. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 11th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6918 OF 2008 DATE: 11.11.2011