Criminal liability requires specific, clear allegations linking the accused's actions to the offence; vague claims based on suspicion do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner, in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to challenge the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in G.R. Case No. 1029 of 2019 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kanas district Puri.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:-

The cyclone “Fani” ravaged parts of State of Orissa in May-June, 2019 causing wide spread damage to property including the electricity installations and severance of electricity wires from the poles. Such damage also occurred in the village of Krushna Nagar under Kanas police station whereby the wires were severed from their poles and consequentially there was disruption of electricity supply. Such supply was restored by affixing new wires to the poles and the same was the responsibility of Preetam Kumar Mohapatra, the Junior Engineer of Electricity Department (accused petitioner) and his staff. Two to three days thereafter, when the mother of the informant, namely, Nishamani Sethi had gone to backyard to pluck flowers, she came in contact with live electric wire that had been severed from its pole and was electrocuted. When the informant’s father wanted to save her, he was also electrocuted. It is alleged that because of sheer negligence and carelessness of the petitioner and his staff, the old wire was connected to electricity and had not been removed even though the new wires had been attached to the poles.

3. On a written report being submitted by the informant before Kanas police station, it led to registration of P.S. Case No. 53 of 2019 under Sections 304 -A/34 of IPC followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against the accused- petitioner under Section 304 -A/34 of I.P.C.

4. Heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Pratap, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Mr. Tripathy argues that a criminal proceeding cannot be initiated on vague and non-specific allegations. Referring to the FIR, Mr. Tripathy would contend that there is nothing therein to show that the petitioner had committed the so called act of negligence rather he has been roped in only because he was the Junior Engineer at the relevant time. Moreover, the FIR also mentions the staff of the Electricity Department, but none of them was charge sheeted. Unless the prosecution comes up with a definite case that the petitioner was solely responsible for allowing a live electricity electric wire to lie on the ground, the proceeding against him would not be justified.

6. Per contra, Mr. Pratap submits that undisputedly the petitioner being the Junior Engineer was responsible for repair of the electricity poles and wires damaged due to the cyclone. It is evident that while restoring electricity supply care was not taken to remove the old wire which being connected to power supply led to the accident. Therefore, according to Mr. Pratap, the petitioner is criminally liable for negligence.

7. Before proceeding to determine the merits of the rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to keep in perspective certain principles of law. Firstly, it is well settled that a criminal proceeding is a serious matter and cannot be initiated without adequate reason. Reference may be had in this regard to the ratio decided in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, reported in 1998 5 SCC 749 Secondly, a criminal liability can be fastened on specific allegations, but not on vague or non-specific allegations. Moreover, the concept of vicarious liability is ordinarily unknown