CRI-APPLICATION-2654-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2654 OF 2021

Kapil @ Kapileshwar s/o Bhimrao Pawar

… Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another

… Respondents

.…

Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate for applicant

Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for respondent No.1-State

.…

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON : 15^st MARCH, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 31^st MARCH, 2022

O R D E R :-

.

The challenge in this application is to the order dated

20.10.2018 passed below application Exh.21 in Summary Criminal

Case no.307 of 2017. Vide order impugned herein the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner, has allowed the

application Exh.21 and directed to proceed against the applicant

herein under Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1 of 6

(( 2 ))

CRI-APPLICATION-2654-2021

2.

Heard. It is a case instituted on police report. The

informant was serving as an Assistant to Wireman with the office of

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

(MSEDCL) at Ashvi. It so happened that there was some technical

snag/breakdown in overhead electricity supply wires at village

Khamba. He was, therefore, directed to accompany the Electrical

Assistant Kunal Patait, accused in the case. Both of them reached the

place by 11.00 in the morning. The technical snag was on the

overhead wire on the electric pole standing at Shinde Vasti. Accused

Kunal Patait asked the informant to climb the pole. He also informed

that the electricity supply has been discontinued. His officer has

obtained permission in that regard. The informant thereupon

climbed the electric pole and started working to remove the fault.

Electricity supplies resumed all of sudden. The informant suffered

shock and fell down. He suffered multiple injuries. On his such

report having been lodged, a charge-sheet was filed against the

Electrical Assistant Kunal Patait (accused in the case).

3.

The informant gave his evidence on oath. He testified.

The Deputy Engineer Shri. Amit Ashok Dhoram had deputed accused

2 of 6

(( 3 ))

CRI-APPLICATION-2654-2021

and the informant for removing the breakdown. It is further in his

evidence that the applicant herein was a Labour Contractor. The

informant was serving at MSEDCL as one of the labours supplied by

the applicant herein. It is in the evidence of the informant that the

applicant did not provide him safety equipments and as such, he too

(the applicant) is liable to be prosecuted.

4.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class found

substance in the evidence of the informant and therefore allowed the

application moved by the prosecution for impleading the appellant

as one of the accused in the case.

5.

The learned APP would submit that no fault could be

found with the order impugned herein. A copy of

contract/agreement between the MSEDCL and the applicant was

placed on record to submit that it was the responsibility of the

applicant to provide the labourers with safety measures/equipments.

Failure on his part to provide such equipments makes him liable for

being prosecuted for the offence in question. The learned APP

therefore urged for dismissal of the application.

3 of 6

(( 4 ))

CRI-APPLICATION-2654-2021

6.

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of

Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others – 2014 DGLS (SC) 35,

has observed that the degree of satisfaction that will be required for

summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as

for framing a charge. It has further been observed that the difference

in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and

a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may

have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the

course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly

summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in

delay of the trial, therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning

the accu