The central legal point established is that factories have a statutory duty to maintain electrical installations safely as per Rule 86 of the Karnataka Factories Rules.

( 1 ) THE instant appeal is filed by the State having been aggrieved by the judgment dt. 17-9-91, passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in C. C. No. 704/88, acquitting the respondents-accused for the of1997 State of Karnataka v. M. Siddappa 1611fences charged under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : That the Respondent-Accused No. 1 is the occupier and the Respondent-Accused No. 2 is the Manager of the Factory- M/s. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhana Ltd. , Pandavapura. On 14-3-88, one Casual Worker by name N. Swamygowda bearing Card No. 860 while on duty was instructed by Karigowda, Deputy Chief Engineer to do the grinding work at baggas elevator. While he was doing the work with the assistance of the grinding machine, the said Swamygowda received electrical shock and as a result, he collapsed on the spot. That one Ramachandra wireman standing near the plug point was instructed by the deceased Swamygowda to insert two bare wires to the plug point without any safety plug. He was not provided with rubber shoes and gloves; let apart, the earthing lead wire of the elevator was cut at the terminal and only two bare wires viz. , phase and neutral were connected to the plug point without safety plug. With the switch put on by the wireman Ramachandra, the deceased Swamygowda suffered electrical shock and died on the spot due to the same.

( 3 ) THAT the P. W. 1 being the Inspector of Factories had launched prosecution against the respondents-accused for contravention of Rule 86 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Respondents having pleaded not guilty before the said Magistrate, the prosecution had examined 3 witnesses and also got marked 18 documents in support of their case. After hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned Judgment, whereby he had acquitted the respondents-accused and it is the said order of acquittal now under challenge by the State before this Court.

( 4 ) I heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Shri B. N. Satish for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Shri Gururajan appearing for the respondents-accused. I have also perused the case records.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader while urging the grounds in the Appeal argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondents-accused is contrary to the facts, law and the evidence on record and that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for the conclusions arrived at by him are erroneous. He further argued that the learned Magistrate ought to have evaluated the clinching evidence, both oral and documentary, and ought to have held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the respondents-accused in a conclusive way and therefore, naturally ought to have convicted and sentenced the respondents-accused in consonance with law. He therefore prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the respondents-accused be convicted and sentenced.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents accused Shri Gururajan, however, had argued that the respondents-accused were in no way responsible for the accident causing the death of the deceased Swamygowda for the reason that he himself was at fault in not wearing the rubber gloves and further the safety rubber shoes at the relevant point of time when he was doing the grinding work at baggas elevator. He further argued that P. W. 1 had not made proper enquiry before launching the prosecution as against the respondents-accused and therefore he submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate was just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and not called for to be interfered with by this Court, 5. Now the question before me is whether the acquittal of the respondents-accused by the learned Magistr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document