Back
Karnataka High Court
G.P.PILLAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-04
CRIMINAL PETITION : 211 of 2004
FACTORIES ACT, 1948
Section 92 -Offence punishable under two statutes -Prosecution initiated under Factories Act and Indian Penal Code on same set of facts -If maintainable.
[S. B. Majage, J]: If an act or omission is punishable under two or more enactments, the offender could be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but cannot be punished twice for the same act or omission constituting an offence in view of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Said provision lays emphasis/stresses on the ingredients, which constitute two different offences with which a person is charged and not on the facts alleged in the two complaints filed for two different offences. In other words, if the offences are not the same but are distinct or made up of different ingredients, the ban imposed cannot be invoked. It is also settled that the two provisions in the two acts may have conterminous fields of operation. Still both the Acts can function with full vigor side by side in their own parallel channels.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 4849 ; AIR 1972 SC 1150; (2000)2 SCC 636 ; AIR 1961 SC 578; 1961 (1) Crl. L.J. 725; AIR 1965 SC 87 ; 1965 (1) Crl. L. J. 120; 1993 Cr. L. J. 29.
Requirements under the section
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 306 and 498-A - Requirements under - Stated.
[N. S. Veerabhadraiah, J]: To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC it has to satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A also for what reasons the commission of the Offence resulted. One of the main ingredients required to be established is that soon before the death she was subjected to harassment in connection with the demand to give consent for second marriage constitutes the ingredients of Section 498A and 306 IPC. If as a result of such harassment persistently pestering a wife to give consent for second marriage is spoken to by the witnesses, the same is acceptable and acted upon. It is with these principles the evidence on record has to be examined.
Cases Referred: AIR 2002 SCW 4391; 2002 (6) Sup 66;(2002) (1) Sup 545;2002 (3)Sup 650.
Prosecution under dual enactments
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897
Section 26 -Prosecution under dual enactments -Prosecution initiated under Indian Penal Code and Factories Act on same set of facts -If maintainable.
[S. B. Majage, J]: When an act or omission is punishable under two or more enactments, the offender could be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but cannot be punished twice for the same act or omission constituting an offence in view of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Said provision lays emphasis/stresses on the ingredients, which constitute two different offences with which a person is charged and not on the facts alleged in the two complaints filed for two different offences. In other words, if the offences are not the same but are distinct or made up of different ingredients, the ban imposed cannot be invoked. It is also settled that the two provisions in the two acts may have conterminous fields of operation. Still both the Acts can function with full vigor side by side in their own parallel channels.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 4849 ; AIR 1972 SC 1150; (2000)2 SCC 636 ; AIR 1961 SC 578; 1961 (1) Crl. L.J. 725; AIR 1965 SC 87 ; 1965 (1) Crl. L. J. 120; 1993 Cr. L. J. 29.
Offence punishable under two statutes
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 304 A -Offence punishable under two statutes -Prosecution initiated both under Indian Penal Code as well as Factories Act on same set of facts -Whether maintainable?
[S. B. Majage, J]: Where an act or omission is punishable under two or more enactments, the offender could be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but cannot be punished twice for the same act or omission constituting an offence in view of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Said provision lays emphasis/stresses on the ingredients, which constitute two different offences with which a person is charged and not on the facts alleged in the two complaints filed for two different offences. In other words, if the offences are not the same but are distinct or made up of different ingredients, the ban imposed cannot be invoked. It is also settled that the two provisions in the two acts may have conterminous fields of operation. Still both the Acts can function with full vigor side by side in their own parallel channels.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 4849; AIR 1972 SC 1150; (2000)2 SCC 636; AIR 1961 SC 578; 1961 (1) Crl. L.J. 725 ; AIR 1965 SC 87 ; 1965 (1) Crl. L. J. 120; 1993 Cr. L. J. 29.
( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are accused in C. C. No. 9087 of 2002 on the file of the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. with a request to quash the proceedings initiated in the said case besides cognisance taken by that Court for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts, which gave rise to the present matter, are: the first petitioner-occupier/manager, second petitioner-Vice- president (Production) and third petitioner-Supervisor of M/s. Caryl laboratories Limited, situated in Chikkaswamy Layout at jaraganahalli in Bangalore, have been prosecuted in C. C. No. 12933 of 2001 on the complaint filed against them for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, alleging that on 30-9-2001 a workman of the said factory by name Shivanand got electric shock holding a pipe, connected to the overhead tank and water basin to ensure proper support to come down through the M. S. ladder and died and that was due to violation of Rules relating to safety measures provided to prevent electrocution and thereby committed the offence alleged. After the said case was filed by the Inspector of Factories, the Police inspector of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the said factory is located, has filed charge-sheet under section 304-A of the IPC after completing investigation in Crime No. 615 of 2001 registered against the petitioners, alleging that in spite of bringing to the notice of the petitioners-accused repeatedly that the machine is giving current shock, they neglected with irresponsibility telling that nobody will die even if there is any current shock and as such on account of their negligence, Shivanand, a worker in the said factory, got electrocution on 30-9-2001 when he had been to attend the work of cleaning distilled tank of the said factory and died and hence, they have committed offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. So, challenging the cognisance taken and issuing process against them for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the petitioners are before this Court.
( 3 ) WITH the consent of both sides, the matter was taken for final hearing and heard. It was vehemently argued for the petitioners-accused that when they have been prosecuted before the Criminal Court under the Factories Act, initiating parallel proceeding against them again on the same set of facts is not at all proper and as such, the proceedings require to be quashed. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Daljith Singh Ghai and Another v State by Station House Officer, wadi Police Station, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, it was also submitted for them that mere violation of safety measures by them or their mere negligence, even if believed, does not attract Section 304-A of the IPC. So also relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of ambalal D. Bhatt v State of Gujarat , which is in fact relied on by this court in the decision referred to already. Further, relied on the decision in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in support of the argument that this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , in such a matter. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader supported the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners. Perused the records carefully.
( 4 ) THE point for consideration is: "whether proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC require to be quashed or not?"
( 5 ) POWER of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , to quash proceedings is not in issue. If need be, reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri, wherein it is held that this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , if a case is made out to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Such a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
