Point of Law: It is clear that the law is well settled that in order to attract provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of CrPC or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the ingredients of offence in earlier case and later case must be one and same. To ascertain whether two offences are same or not, identity of ingredients of offence is to be seen and not identity of allegations.

ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This is a reference made by the learned Single Judge referring following question to answer by Division Bench:-

“Whether initiation of proceedings against the same accused under Section 304-A IPC is permissible under the law even after his conviction by learned Judicial Magistrate (Labour Court) under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 and whether the same amounts to double jeopardy when the offence under the Factories Act and the one under Section 304-A IPC arose out of the same incident?”

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this reference are that on 10.12.2013 one Silvanus Tirki (since deceased), was engaged in the work of Cleaning of Drakchain Feeder for Broiler in M/s Salasar Steel & Power Ltd. Gerwani, District Raigarh. His work shift was from 9:30 a.m. At about 12:00 noon when he was returning after drinking water from water cooler, he slipped and fell down on ground and suffered head injury. He was immediately taken to District Hospital, Raigarh where he was declared brought dead. Complaint case was filed by the Deputy / Assistant Director, Industrial Health & Safety-cum-Factory Inspector for violation of provisions of Section 41 of the Factories Act, 1948, as amended upto 1987, (for short 'the Act of 1948') read with Rule 73 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Factories Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules of 1962'), punishable under Section 92 of the Act of 1948. Petitioner No.4 and one Krishna Mohta admitted their guilt before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and accordingly, vide order dated 5.5.2014, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.70,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for 1 month. Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Case No.20/Factory Act/2014 dated 5.5.2014 was not put to challenge and amount of fine, as imposed, was deposited by them. Legal heirs of deceased Silvanus Tirki filed Claim Case No.28/EC Act/2014/Fatal before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, which was allowed in part vide order dated 28.8.2014 and amount of Rs.3,98,596/- was awarded as compensation. As recorded in the order of reference, amount of compensation was also deposited by the company.

3. Based on information received from Deputy Director, Industries Health and Securities, Raigarh Division, District Magistrate directed enquiry under Section 176 (1) of CrPC vide order dated 20.12.2013. Deputy Collector -cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted an enquiry and submitted report to the effect that death of deceased employee was on account of negligence, not providing important security means during execution of work and proposed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, employment to one of family members of deceased and registration of criminal case against petitioners in concerned police station. Based on proposed action in report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Crime bearing No.106/2014 for the offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered against petitioners. Aggrieved by registration of FIR, petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned inquiry report dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P/1) made by the respondent No.2.

ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to completely set aside the proceeding which has been initiated on the basis of inquiry report dated 16.6.2014 made by the respondent No.2.

iii. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of petition.

iv. That, the F.I.R. dated 08.05.2014 (Annexure P/4) may kindly be quashed.”

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Single Judge taking note of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India; Sections 4 & 300 (1) of CrPC; decision in case of Binod Kumar Das & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2008 (64) AIC 430 (Jharkhand High Court); R. Kannan vs. State by Sub Inspector