IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.8022 of 2007 Venkatesan ..Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs. State by Inspector of police Neyveli Thermal Police Station Neyveli-1. ..Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.213/05) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for a direction to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. No.550/2005 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, Cuddalore District as against this petitioner and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for M/s. P. Palaninathan For Respondent : Mr.A. Saravanan, G.A ORDER The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.550 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli & Cuddalore District, as against him. 2. In complaint dated 10.08.2005, the respondent has registered a case in Cr. No.213 of 2005 initially under section 174 Cr.P.C, subsequently altered to one of 304A IPC. The complainant informed of an accidental death met by one A.Pushparaj, S/o. Arulappan, while working on behalf of the concern Radha Engineering Works Ltd., at the Thermal-I Extension site, Neyveli. Owing to unexpected slippage and falling of coal, the deceased got entangled between the 'Conveyor belt' and pulley, at about 7.40 pm, on 09.08.2005. When taken to hospital, the duty Doctor informed that he would have died at about 8.20 pm. The respondent after investigation has filed a charge sheet on 21.09.2005 for offences u/s.304A -IPC against four persons. The allegation against the petitioner, as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ owner of Radha Engineering Works Ltd. and also his staff was that, they had failed to provide the requisite safety equipments, despite their knowledge that in the absence thereof, the employee would be in danger. Two other accused viz., Site Engineer and Supervisor were charged on the ground that they had insisted on the deceased carrying out his work in the absence of security equipment. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was an admitted case that the petitioner who was the owner of the company engaged on contract for the Thermal-I Extension Project, was not anywhere near the scene of occurrence when the accident occurred. The petitioner's name did not find a place in the First Information Report. The deceased had never been under the employment of the petitioner. The very FIR informed that when the deceased was working in clearing the coal, a heap of coal in the conveyor fell therefrom in an unexpected manner, whereby the deceased met with the accident. In such circumstances, no rash and negligent act could be attributed to the petitioner for a charge under Section 304A IPC, to hold good. It was necessary that the act complained of must be the Causa Causons, i.e. the immediate cause. 4. Learned senior counsel placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court. In Public Prosecutor v. Pitchaiah Moopanar alias Pitchaiah Pillai, 1969 LW (Crl.) 158, wherein death of several children have been caused owing to the collapse of a school building. This Court, on the facts of such case observed that, ' .... It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent himself constructed the building. It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons and the masons constructed the building. If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the lime and mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building, who are supposed to be skilled. The respondent is a lay man. He therefore, cannot be held liable for the negligence of the persons who actually constructed the building, which negligence is the Causa Causons for the collapse of the building.' In such case, this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Rangawalla v. Maharashtra State, AIR 1965 SC 1616, wherein it was held that, "death must be direct result of the rash or negligent act of accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another's negligence and it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ must be the cause causans, and it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Drawing a parallel, learned senior counsel submits that in the instant case, the admitted position was that the petitioner as the Contractor was carrying out the work at the place of occurrence by engaging others. 5. In A.Venkataraman v. State, 1989 LW (Crl.) 382, this Court dealt with a case wherein a labourer had met his death owing to he and others engaged in digging mud around a boulder, not taking adequate care. On consideration that none of the witnesses implicated the petitioner in the crime, that it was admitted by prosecution that the petitioner therein was not present at the scene and that it was not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had directed any particular work to be done on the fateful day in any particular mode which would even prima facie indicate lack of due care and caution before permitting the labourers to undertake such arduous task, this court found that there was no material whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the crime and if any trial is allowed to be conducted on the materials put forth by the prosecution it would be nothing but a mock trial and an exercise in futility. 6. Learned senior counsel submitted that given the facts of the present case, the above observation would squarely apply also hereto. 7. Learned Government Advocate in response to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhalchandra @ Bapu & anr. v. State of Maharashtra, CDJ 1968 SC 246, wherein after detailed consideration of the law on the subject, the Apex Court held that criminal negligence could be found in varying sets of circumstances. On the facts of the particular case, the Apex Court held that the appellants before it had undoubtedly displayed a high degree of negligence by allowing or causing to be used dangerous and prohibited compositions and substances which must be held to have been the sufficient cause of the explosion, wherein 11 persons died and 7 persons were injured. It might be mentioned that in such case the appellants before the Apex Court held licences under the Indian Explosives Act 1884 and the rules framed thereunder, to manufacture, possess and sell fire works and gun powder not exceeding 200 pounds and to possess and sell safety fuses. Their contention had been that on the facts of the case it was not possible to hold that they were responsible for the explosion or had done anything which could be regarded as a direct and immediate cause thereof. As above stated and on the facts of the particular case, the Apex Court found otherwise. 8. On consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that no offence under section 304A IPC stands made out against the petitioner herein. The petitioner was not so much as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present at the scene of occurrence and he cannot be said to have any role in the accident, contributory or otherwise. For the aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.550/2005 on the file of the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli & Cuddalore District as against this petitioner shall stand quashed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar avr To 1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli & Cuddalore District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal POlice Station, Neyveli. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. P. Palaniappan, Advocate. S.R.No.11080. Crl.O.P.No.8022 of 2007 BVN (CO) GSK 12.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/