(This Crl.P is filed U/S 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC No.962/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Kunigal.)

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are respectively accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.962/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said case.

2. Though this matter was listed on 31.1.2010 for admission, it was taken for final disposal and the arguments of Sri R Jayaprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State were heard on merits. The averments in the complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories before the Trial Court and other materials placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners were perused.

3. The final order was dictated in this case on 31.3.2010 in the open court and the present petition came to be dismissed on merits. Thereafter, on 8.4.2010, before the final order, as dictated on 31.3.2010, could be transcribed by the judgment writer and signed by me, the learned counsel for the petitioners got this matter listed for Being Spoken To. On that day, he submitted that during his arguments on 31.3.2010, he could not refer to the provisions of Section 300 Cr.PC, which provides that a person being tried and acquitted in an earlier case cannot be tried in a subsequent case either for the same offence or for any other offence on the same set of facts on which he was tried and acquitted in the earlier proceedings and therefore the final order dictated in this case on 31.3.2010 be recalled and further opportunity be given to him for submitting further argument with reference to Section 300 Cr.PC. Accepting the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order that was dictated on 31.3.2010, which was not yet transcribed and signed, was recalled and opportunity came to be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners for making his further submissions with reference to the provisions of Section 300 Cr.PC. Further arguments of both the sides are heard.

4. Stated in brief the facts leading to the present petition are as under:

(a) The 2nd petitioner herein viz: A Lohidakshan, the Manager of the Factory belonging to the 1st petitioner, viz: K V Ashraf Hussain, and one Umesh s/o.Chandrashekaraiah, an employee of the 1st petitioner in his factory, were prosecuted in CC No.61/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kunigal, for the offence under Section 304A IPC on the ground that the said accused did not properly fence the transmission machinery in the said factory and therefore one Smt.Gowramma, who was employed in the said factory, came into contract with transmission machinery, sustained fatal injuries and died. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted both the said accused in the said case, of the offence under Section 304A IPC.

(b) The Factory Inspector has filed his subsequent complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC before the same leaned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kunigal against the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, K V Ashraf Hussain, the occupier of the said factory and A Lohidakshan, the Manager thereof, alleging that by not properly fencing the transmission machinery in the said factory, they contravened the provision of Section 21(1)(iv)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short ‘Factories Act’), which is punishable under Section 92 of the said Act.

(c) The Trial Court took cognizance of the said offence and issued process against both the petitioners. Accordingly, CC No. 962/2006 came to be registered against these petitioners for the said offence. Therefore, the petitioners herein, who are respectively accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case (CC No. 962/2006), have filed the present petition un