Liability for negligence in criminal cases requires clear evidence of gross negligence; merely failing to take additional precautions beyond established protocols is insufficient for criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of framing of charge dated 19th April, 2011 (Annexure-6) and the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.145 of 1998 qua him pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur on the grounds inter alia that such initiation of criminal prosecution against him is ex-facie illegal, hence, in the interest of justice, deserves intervention of this Court in exercise of its inherent power.

2. The facts in brief are as follows. A plain paper FIR was lodged with respect to an incident dated 30th January, 1998, during which, on account of release of water in the Hirakud Dam with opening of two sluice gates, seven students of the UCE, Burla, while taking bath in the river bed at a ghat slipped away and died with the allegation that there has been gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and others on duty. In fact, the report was drawn at the behest of the IIC, Burla P.S., subsequent to which, investigation was held leading to the filing of chargesheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under Section(s) 336 and 304-A IPC . Later to the submission of the chargesheet, the learned court below took cognizance of the offences and thereafter, framed the charge by order dated 19^th April, 2011. In other words, the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur considering the chargesheet and connected materials was of the view that a prima facie case under the alleged offences to have been made out against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no negligence, inasmuch as, release of the water from the dam was preceded by blowing siren which was ignored by the deceased students. Considering the claim of the petitioner and the criminal proceeding in respect of a co-accused, namely, Ramakanta Mallik having been quashed by order dated 5^th April, 2023 in CRLMC No.3534 of 2011, the Court is to examine, whether, the charge vis-a-vis the petitioner and for that matter, the criminal proceeding against him needs any interference of similar kind.

3. Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Anshuman Ray, Advocate and Mr. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is equally not negligent and the unfortunate incident took place despite precaution being taken with the blow of siren not once but thrice but the students, who were found to be under the influence of alcohol could not return back to the shore of the ghat. It is further submitted that as per statement of the Gauge Reader of Left Still Way Control Room, who was along with another official while attending duty experienced increase in water level and accordingly, informed the Work Sarkar, who noted it down in the register and as the water level of 630 ft. being the maximum capacity the reservoir can store during non-monsoon period, the work Sarkar informed higher authority also, during which, the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer reached at the spot at around 7.30 AM and personally inspected the water level and similarly, took note of the level of water in the dam and after discussion among the officials, instruction was issued to all the operational staff to get ready to open the sluice gates. The contention of Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate is that due process was followed all along and on the intimation of the Work Sarkar, the Crane Operator opened the Gate No.37 and thereafter, the second gate was opened at about 2.00 PM. Referring to the statement of the Gauge Rea