ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in S.C. No.186 of 2018 on the file of X Additional District Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Contents of the charge sheet in brief:

a. The complainant is working in Lalitambika Industries, which is a tyres company. On 20.02.2018 at about 9.00 A.M., while he along with other

1 in short ‘Cr.P.C.’

labour were working and in the process of installing new pipes, a fire accident happened, due to which six persons were set ablaze and sustained severe burns and the complainant was also sustained burns to his right and left feet and back. He was shifted to Hospital and he gave statement to the police that the incident took place due to company’s negligence. Case was registered as Cr.No.27 of 2018 under Sections 338 and 337 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet.

b. It is stated that as the accused being the license holder, occupier of the factory premises with due intention and knowledge and since has not taken any safety precautions and as a result of which, three persons died and three persons were severely injured, which amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to the murder is liable for punishment under Section 304-II of I.P.C. Since the accused acted rashly or negligently likely to cause endanger to the human life, resulting in causing grievous hurt is punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and further liable for punishment under Section 6 and 4(1)-6 of Factories Act, 1948 and A.P. Factories Rules 1950 as he is carrying on unauthorized manufacturing process in the factory premises without applying for renewal of the factory license by remitting original challan for annual license fee before commencement of respected licensing years as he not paid license fees so far for the licensing years 2016 to 2018, accused is liable for punishment under Section 41 & Rule 61-E of Factories Act, 1948 and A.P. Factories Rules, 1950 as he failed to provide shoes, helmets, suitable heat resistant aprons and other required personal protective equipment to the workers.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against him on the following grounds:

a. The investigating officer did not submit any evidence or material along with the charge sheet to show that the petitioner has not maintained the fire safety measures in the industries.

b. The opinion issued by LW.35 on 01.06.2018 clearly established that there is no inflammable hydrocarbons in the company premises, thus there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner to attract the provision of Section 304-II I.P.C.

c. It is only an incident occurred because of the accident and out of human error. No offence is made out under Section 304-II I.P.C.

d. The petitioner obtained license from the Inspector of Factories, Visakhapatnam and the said license shall be valid until it has been duly cancelled by the department.

e. The petitioner obtained auto renewal of consent order and the said renewal is valid from 3101.2018 to 31.01.2023.

f. The investigating officer failed to consider that there is no adverse material placed against the petitioner by the prosecutor and none of the listed witnesses spoke against the petitioner and their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not contain any adverse remarks against the petitioner.

Arguments advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Dr.P.B.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.

D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1. Despite notice being served on Respondent No.2, none represented for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused and the incident is an accident which took place despite taking safeguard and safety measures by the petitioner in running the factory. It is stated