Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3207
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Sekar
Versus
State of Tamilnadu SHO Mylam Police Station, Villupuram District
Crl.R.C.No.1661 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on: 19-08-2009
For the Petitioner:I. Subramaniam, Senior Counsel, M. Devaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Kumanan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
Liability under the Explosives Act, Indian Penal Code, and Explosive Substances Act hinges on the accused's knowledge and intention regarding the potential danger of transporting explosive materials.
Headnote:
Explosive Substances - Criminal Proceedings - Explosives Act, 1908, Indian Penal Code, TNPPD Act, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - The court discussed the provisions of Explosives Act, Indian Penal Code, and Explosive Substances Act in relation to the transportation of explosive materials, knowledge of potential danger, and criminal negligence. The court emphasized the importance of knowledge and intention in determining liability under the relevant acts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a licensed blaster, sought discharge from criminal proceedings related to an explosion during the transportation of explosive materials. The trial court found a prima facie case and dismissed the discharge petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's knowledge of the potential danger and his decision to transport explosive materials despite warnings constituted criminal negligence, leading to the dismissal of the discharge petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's liability under the Explosives Act, Indian Penal Code, and Explosive Substances Act, focusing on knowledge, intention, and criminal negligence in the transportation of explosive materials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that liability under the relevant acts requires knowledge and intention regarding the potential danger of transporting explosive materials. It distinguished previous cases based on the specific circumstances and the petitioner's awareness as a licensed blaster.
Final Decision: The criminal revision and the connected Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision to deny the discharge petition.
Key Points: - The petitioner, a licensed blaster, sought discharge from criminal proceedings regarding an explosion that occurred during the transportation of explosive materials [21000374970001]. - The prosecution alleged that the petitioner transported electric detonators and slurry together despite being warned by others that such combined transportation would cause an explosion [21000374970007][21000374970008]. - The petitioner argued that the explosion was an accident caused by the negligence of others and that he lacked the requisite knowledge or intention for charges under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code [21000374970001][21000374970005]. - The court distinguished this case from previous precedents, noting that the petitioner, as a licensed blaster, possessed specific knowledge of the dangers associated with the combined transportation of the explosives [21000374970011][21000374970013]. - The court found that the petitioner was explicitly warned of the grave consequences but chose to proceed, indicating he had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death [21000374970008][21000374970009]. - The trial court's decision to dismiss the discharge petition was upheld, as the court found a prima facie case for the charges [21000374970003][21000374970014]. - The criminal revision and the connected Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed by the High Court [21000374970014].
What is the liability of a licensed blaster for transporting explosive materials when warned of the potential danger?
What are the criteria for framing a charge under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code in cases of accidental explosions?
Does the combined transportation of electric detonators and slurry by a licensed blaster constitute criminal negligence?
The first accused in S.C.No.117 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court II), Tindivanam filed a petition invoking the provision under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge from the criminal proceedings but, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court II), Tindivanam chose to dismiss the plea for discharge. Hence, the present criminal revision case before the court.
2. The petitioner would contend that he is the proprietor and licence holder of Sri Sakthi Explosive situate at Padirapuliyur and Thenalapakkam. He is a licenced blaster entitled to detonate the explosive under the Explosives Act, 1908. He entered into a memorandum of undertaking dated 4. 2007 with M/s.SPL Infrastructure Construction which is engaged in the business of laying and expanding Highways. Under the terms of the said M.O.U, he despatched electric detonators and certain quantity of slurry in a jeep belonging to the petitioner. An accident was reported. The investigation would reveal that the explosion was as a result of throwing of mud on the explosive laden vehicle when smoke was coming therefrom by the people thronged to the place. Neither slurry nor the detonator ignited by itself. Further, the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased accused 2, 3 and 4. They did not warn the general public and as a result of their callous behaviour, the explosion had taken place causing loss to life and property. No ingredients of the offences under sections 324, 326, 429, 286 and 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code were made out. Therefore, he has sought for discharge from the criminal prosecution.
3. The respondent police, having investigated the case, filed final report as against the petitioner and five others of whom A2, A3 and A4 had died in the accident itself. The charge would read that the petitioner and other accused committed offences under sections 324, 326, 427, 429, 168, 268, 286 and 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the TNPPD Act and also under sections 9B(1)(b) 3(c)(ii) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and section 3(b) of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
4. The Trial Court, having adverted to the materials on record, has come to a decision that there is a prima facie case for charging the petitioner/first accused under the aforesaid penal provisions and consequently dismissed the petition seeking discharge.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would confine his argument with respect to the charge under section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act. Though the revision petitioner challenged the charge as against him under the aforesaid penal provisions and preferred the revision challenging the dismissal of the plea for the discharge from the entire criminal proceedings, now the revision petitioner wants the charge under section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act be dropped.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even as per the own showing of the prosecution, it is only a case of pure accident. Just because many precious lives were lost in the accident and property damage to the tune of several lakhs also has been caused on account of the accident, no motive can be attributed to the petitioner for the occurrence which took place on account of the accidental explosion. He would also submit that the statements collected by the investigating agency would disclose that on account of throwing of sand over the explosive laden vehicle, the accident had taken place. Further, the criminal negligence on the part of A2, A3 and A4 in not cautioning the public to go away to a safe distance has also contributed to the accident. It is his submission that ignoring the statements given by the witnesses in this case, the Trial Court has c
