ORDER :

V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 208 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar. The petitioners are the second and third accused in the above criminal proceedings and they stood charged for the offences under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304, of the Indian Penal Code, Section 9(B)(I)(A) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present quash petition are as follows:

Accused No. 1 in this case is a Partnership Firm engaged in manufacturing fire works. The petitioners are the partners of A-1 firm, the explosive licence was standing in the name of A-2, and it was in force till 31.03.2015. The Industry is located at Mudalipatti Village, Vaadi Village Panchayat, Virudhunagar District. The land has been taken on lease from A-4-Pandiyan (since deceased), who was also one of the partners in the A-1 firm. A-3 is the wife of A-2 and A-4 is the father of A-3. Subsequently, A-2, A-3, A-4 (since deceased) entered into an unregistered lease agreement with A-5, Paulpandi (now, arrayed as Á-4) on 02.12.2011, leasing out the factory for three years and lease amount was fixed as Rs. 30 Lakhs, and A-4 Paulpandi engaged more than 200 labours for manufacturing fire crackers. On 05.09.2012, at about 11.30 a.m., there was an explosion in the factory, which extended for nearly one hour. At that time, huge crowd has gathered near the factory. At about 12.30 p.m., room No. 28, wherein huge stock of sulphur has been stored, got exploded and in the above explosion, 40 persons have died and 27 persons have been seriously injured and 61 persons have been suffered minor injuries. A-2 and A-3, who are the partners of A-1 firm, have illegally entered into an unregistered lease, in violation of the Explosives Rules, 2008, leased out the factory to A-4 Paulpandi, who has no proper training to run the industry, committed an offence under the Explosives Act, caused the death of 40 persons, and also caused injury to more than 88 persons. In the said circumstances, the petitioners along with 15 others were charged with for the aforementioned offences. Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that even though the petitioners are the partners of A-1 firm from 02.12.2011, they have leased out the factory to one Paulpandi, who has been arrayed as A-4 in this case. On the date of occurrence, only that Paulpandi was running the industry and the petitioners are no way responsible for the occurrence. Even though the explosive licence was standing in the name of A-2, only Paulpandi was exploiting the licence and running the industry. In the said circumstances, the petitioners herein cannot be made vicariously liable for the offence committed by him. The petitioners have been implicated in this crime with a mala fide intention yielding to public pressure, wherein 40 persons have died and more than 80 have been injured. It is only an accident, if at all there was any negligence, it is only attributable to A-4 Paulpandi and the petitioners are no way responsible for the accident and they cannot be charged with for the aforesaid offences.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first and second respondents would contend that, it is an admitted case that the petitioners are the partners of A-1 firm. The explosive licence was standing in the name of A-2. Even though the petitioners claimed that the factory was leased out to A-4 Paulpandi, the investigation reveals that the petitioners were also actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the business of A-1 firm. That apart, an inspection was conducted in the factory premises on 28.08.2012. After noticing various violations of the explosive licence, based on the report of the Controller of Explosives, licence grant