ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No. 313 of 2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District Court, Madurai.

1. The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No. 313 of 2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District Judge, Madurai, filed for the offences under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC r/w Section 9B(1)(a) of the Explosive Act, 1884.

2. The allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of fire crackers as proprietor of Anantham Fire Works. The said concern has a licence to manufacture the fire works. The said licence is renewed from time to time. The allegations in the charge sheet are that one Prabhu was the Foreman in the said concern. On 24.09.2013, at about 05.00 p.m, when the employees in the said concern were involved in the process of manufacturing of fire crackers, the occurrence took place, as a result of which, one employee, by name, Pothumani died on the spot and two other employees, by name, Vijaya and Chinnaponnu died at the hospital and 18 other employees suffered either grievous or simple injuries. The Foreman, by name, Prabhu, who was originally shown as an accused, also suffered burn injuries and succumbed to those injuries later. The allegation in the charge is that the concern did not adequately follow the safety regulations and also violated the licence conditions.

3. The allegations are that the concern did not appoint a qualified Supervisor to supervise the manufacture of crackers and impart the training as regards the safety measures to be adopted by the employees. It is further alleged that the fire crackers were prepared in an open space and not in the designated rooms. The concern had also not covered the floor with a rubber mat, which is mandatory. Because of the explosion, the roof in the cutting machine had fallen over one employee and caused injuries to 17 employees. It is also stated that the petitioner was also prosecuted under the Factories Act in STC Nos.81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 92 and 95 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. It is also an admitted fact that in all the cases, the petitioner was convicted on her plea of guilt and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each.

4......

(i) Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the second quash petition. The earlier quash petition filed in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 9191 of 2016 was dismissed by this Court on 26.02.2020. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the earlier quash petition, the petitioner did not raise any ground on merits. They had only canvassed that the violations alleged against the petitioner were subject matter of prosecution under the Factories Act and the prosecution for Section 304-A IPC on the basis of very same allegations would amount to double jeopardy. This Court found that the ingredients of the offence under the Factories Act and the offence under Section 304-A IPC are different and hence, the prosecution cannot be said to be barred for the reason that it would amount to double jeopardy. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this Court had not gone into the merits of the matter and left open the contentions and defences of the petitioner on merits. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the instant quash petition has been filed on the ground that on merits the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner and hence, maintainable.

(ii) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner being a lady was managing the affairs through her employees, mainly, the Foreman. The Foreman, who was a qualified person was in-charge directly in following the safety regulations. Unfortunately, he also died in the accident that took place on the fateful day. The allegations in the charge sheet would show that