Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Dhanpreet Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-54097 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2022
FACT OF THE CASE: The petitioners, sons of the owner of a factory, were charged with causing death by negligence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for an accident that occurred at the factory, resulting in the deaths of two workers. The petitioners challenged the charge, arguing that they were not in charge of the factory's operations and had separate proprietorship firms. FINDING OF THE COURT: The court found that the petitioners were not in charge of the factory's operations and had separate proprietorship firms. The court also found that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the petitioners and that the evidence collected by the investigating agency did not support the continuation of proceedings against them. ISSUES: 1. Whether the petitioners were in charge of the factory's operations. 2. Whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioners. 3. Whether the evidence collected by the investigating agency supported the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners. RATIO DECIDENDI: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not in charge of the factory's operations and had separate proprietorship firms. The court relied on the following evidence to support its finding: a. The petitioners' GST registration certificates showed that they had separate proprietorship firms. b. The final report of the investigating agency did not contain any evidence that the petitioners were in charge of the factory's operations. 2. The court held that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the petitioners. The court relied on the following evidence to support its finding: a. The final report of the investigating agency did not contain any evidence that the petitioners were responsible for the accident. b. There was no expert testimony to establish that the machinery deployed at the factory was outdated or sub-standard. 3. The court held that the evidence collected by the investigating agency did not support the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners. The court relied on the following evidence to support its finding: a. The final report of the investigating agency did not contain any evidence that the petitioners were responsible for the accident. b. There was no expert testimony to establish that the machinery deployed at the factory was outdated or sub-standard. FINAL DECISION: The court allowed the petition, set aside the charge against the petitioners, and discharged them.
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') challenging the order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, whereby, charge has been framed against the petitioners in case FIR No.310 dated 19.11.2018 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala along with judgment dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order framing charge.
2. The brief factual matrix as is necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case is as under:-
2.1 The FIR in question had been registered on the allegations that Parshotam Singh (non-petitioner) is the sole proprietor and owner of Sidhu Industrial Corporation situated in Village Dhudiawal Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near R.C.F. Hussainpur. His sons Dhanpreet Singh and Dilpreet Singh (petitioners- herein) are engaged in manufacturing of the floor of the railway coaches on contract basis with RCF Kapurthala. For the said purposes Parshotam Singh and his son Dhanpreet Singh have set up Bedding Press Plasma Soap, EOT Crane No.2, EOT Crane No.1 in their factory and employed 70-75 labourers. It was stated that the tenure of the machines and bedding press installed in the factory had already matured, but despite being aware of the same, machinery was not replaced, thus endangering safety of the labourers. It was also alleged that instead of appointing skilled workers in the factory, they are getting the work executed from un-skilled labourers by paying less to those who do not possess any sort of experience.
2.2 On the day of occurrence, the nut-bolt studs broke, due to which the heavy press weighing 4 quintal fell down injuring 3 workers. Parshotam Singh-owner of the factory got the workers admitted in Government Hospital, Kapurthala where Kewal Singh and Balbir Singh died as a result of injuries sustained by them. Accordingly, a case was registered against the owner of the factory Parshotam Singh (non-petitioner) son of Nagina Singh and his sons Dhanpreet Singh and Dilpreet Singh (petitioners herein).
2.3 Upon conclusion of investigation, final report under Section 173 CrPC (Annexure P-1) was filed before the Court. Part of the bedding machine, bedding plate of the length of 10 feet and 3 feet width with thickness of 3.5 inches weighing about 20 quintals along with two holding bolts about 4 inch thickness and holding and clumping bolts were taken into possession.
2.4 The petitioners appeared before the Court and eventually vide order dated 16.07.2019, charge against the petitioners along with Parshotam Singh (non petitioner) was framed for offence under Section 304-A IPC, which reads thus:-
"That on 19.11.2018 at about 11:00 am in the area of Dudianwal, you all accused were running Sidhu industrial Corporation for making ground of boxes which were delivered to railway coach factory Kapurthala and to Riabraley and the machines and bedding press installed in the factory were already in expiry date and by using expiry bedding press in your factory, you all accused committed rash and negligent act, due to Kewal Singh and Balbir Singh were died and your this act of using expiry bedding machine falls within the preview of causing death of both the afore said persons not amounting to culpable homicide and as such, you all thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304 A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court, And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court."
2.5 Aggrieved of the said order a revision petition was filed by the accused, wherein it was specifically urged out that the petitioners Dilpreet Singh and Dhanpreet Singh are neither the owners nor partners of the said factory and it
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's liability beyond reasonable doubt and the limited application of vicarious liability in criminal....
The prosecution under different statutes for distinct offences does not constitute double jeopardy. Lack of evidence for negligence is crucial in cases of criminal prosecution for causing death by ne....
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
It is well settled that at stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Magistrate is only to be satisfied that t....
A Factory Manager can be prosecuted under IPC Section 304A for negligence leading to an employee's death, even if the Occupier was previously prosecuted under the Factories Act, without violating dou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
