Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Mohanlal Purohit - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 680 of 2017
Decided On : 30-07-2019
Narendra Pareek, Advocate, Arvind Kumar, Advocate, Rajpal Dhankhar, Advocate
Where a special legislation exists, a person can be prosecuted only under the Special Act, and parallel proceedings under the IPC would amount to double jeopardy.
Headnote:
MINES ACT - SECTION 72-C - SECTION 304 IPC - Whether parallel proceedings under the Mines Act and Indian Penal Code can continue against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the continuation of proceedings in an FIR under Section 304 IPC and an order dismissing their application under Section 216 CrPC. They argued that the Mines Act being a special legislation would prevail over the IPC and that parallel proceedings under both laws would result in double jeopardy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings under Section 304 IPC should be quashed as the facts in the complaint and challan were akin, and continuation of proceedings under the IPC would amount to abuse of process and double jeopardy.
Issues: Whether parallel proceedings under the Mines Act and Indian Penal Code can continue against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judgments of the Jharkhand High Court which held that where a complaint has been filed under Section 72-C of the Mines Act, proceedings under the IPC should be quashed. The court distinguished the judgments cited by the complainant, holding that they did not apply to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the Criminal Court under Section 304 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Writ Petition aggrieved by the continuation of proceedings in F.I.R. No.382/2010 dated 18.12.2010 and against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. In brief the factual matrix of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 18.12.2010, wherein it was mentioned that a blasting had taken place at the mines of Moda Pahad, Jhunjhunu, a fly rock from the mines of Petitioner No.1 hit at the head of the son of the complainant which resulted in his instant death.
3. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 304 of I.P.C. Proceedings were initiated by Chief Mining Engineer by filing a complaint under Section 73, 72-B, 70, 72C(1)(a) of Mines Act, 1952.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Mines Act being a special legislation, would prevail over the India Penal Code. For any violation of the Mines Act, if it results into death, the same is punishable under Section 72C (a) of the Mines Act, 1952, hence, India Penal Code would not apply.
5. It is contended that parallel proceedings under the Mines Act and Indian Penal Code cannot be continued against the petitioners, as the same would result in double jeopardy.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " Arvind Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2015) 23 RCR(Criminal) 15 " & " Jullu Rehman vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 3 RCR(Criminal) 572 ."
7. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the Criminal Writ Petition. It is contended that petitioners had earlier challenged the order of framing of charge before the High Court which Revision Petition was dismissed and they were permitted to move application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and the same also stands dismissed.
8. It is also contended that proceedings under the Mines Act and under the Indian Penal Code can continue at the same time. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on " State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 ," "Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1009/2008) decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 22.02.2013 & " Abdul Kalam Musalman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,2010 SCCOnline(Raj.) 4354 ".
9. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the complaint filed by the Chief Mining Engineer as well as the F.I.R.
10. The contents of the F.I.R. and the complaint as far as occurrence is concerned, is similar. The question which needs adjudication before the Court is as to whether these are parallel proceedings and whether two proceedings can continue at the same time against an accused.
11. Section 304 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 304-A of I.P.C. deals with causing death by negligence. Petitioner has been charged for offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. and his application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed by the Court below and the said order is also under challenge before this Court.
12. In "Abdul Kalam Musalman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) this Court was dealing with the difference between Section 304 of I.P.C. and 304-A of I.P.C. in that case death was caused as the petitioner did not take certain security measures. The Court held that the offence would fall under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and not under Section 304 of I.P.C.
13. The present case does not fall within purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as death has not been caused with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that it is likely to cause death and the case does not fall in the five exceptions given under Section 300 of I.P.C. The, case is clearly one where death has been caused by negligent act of the petitioner.
14. Section 72-C in the Mines Act, 1952 deals with provision for contra
