K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 802/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Doddaballapur registered against them for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

2. The Doddaballapur Rural Police has registered a case against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 304A of IPC on the ground that on 5.2.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. in the premises of the factory by name M/s. Hexagon Bio-Pharma Pvt. Ltd., one Sri Arun Kumar was discharging his duty in the II Shift. At that time, there was an explosion of fuse as a result of which he suffered injury to his stomach. On the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. On the same day, at about 8.30 p.m., the father of the deceased, on the allegations that the employer has not taken careful measures to protect the interest and safety of the workers, filed a complaint before the Doddaballapura Police Station and as such the charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offence.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the same set of facts and circumstances, the Assistant Director of Factories, Division-14, Bangalore, Karmika Bhavan, Dairy Circle, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 29, has lodged a private complaint before the same Court in C.C. No. 468/2011 for the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, making the above said allegations against the occupier of the said premises Sri Sheikh Bhasheer, accused No. 4 in the police FIR and the said case was ended in conviction. It is alleged in the said private complaint that the occupier of the said premises has contravened the provision of Rule 84 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969, r/w Section 41 of Factories Act, 1948. It is specifically alleged that said person was negligent in not following unsafe acts and unsafe conditions, that is to say:

1. There was no arrangement provided to control the drum/basket while in motion and when the lid is in open condition.

2. It was found that the machine was operated at higher speed than the manufacturers prescribed.

3. Casual approach was seen adopted in operating the machine which is totally incorrect and highlights the poor knowledge of the deceased about the hazards.

4. An unskilled workmen was assigned to work without providing proper training & Supervision.

5. The Centrifugal machine constitute as pressure vessel was found not subjected for periodical tests and examinations to ascertain its integrity, sound construction and safe working by a competent person."

4. Alleging the above said unsafe acts and unsafe conditions under the Factories Act, the accused No. 4 was prosecuted. The order sheet of the trial Court discloses that the accused No. 4 herein (petitioner No. 4) was convicted for the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the said offence and in default to under go simple imprisonment for two days.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that when on similar facts and circumstances if the occupier of the premises is already convicted and sentenced, the same person and any other persons cannot be convicted for the same offences on the same facts. In this context, he has drawn my attention to the decision reported in 2007 LLR 856 rendered by Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand. At paragraph No. 7, the said Court has held that:

"The law is settled in the various decisions that the special law shall prevail over the general law but both shall not run concurrently for the same cause of action. I find that when the complaint case has been instituted vide C/2 No. 5211/05 under Special law (Factories Act, 1948) the continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners for the of