Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
SATYA PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1127/2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Satya Prakash, sustained injuries to his left arm while working on a damaged machine at the Government of India Press, Mayapuri, on 23.04.2018. Despite prior warnings and information about the fault, he was compelled to operate the machine (!) (!) .
The injury resulted from the machine suddenly starting while the petitioner was attempting to remove a paper stuck in it, which was reportedly due to mechanical failure and negligence in maintenance by responsible officers (!) (!) .
The petitioner had informed the concerned officers about the defect in the machine, and this was recorded in the Log Book. However, the records regarding the machine’s faults and maintenance were reportedly not available when sought through RTI, and the records were allegedly suppressed or missing (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation revealed that the machine was repaired prior to the incident, and the inspection reports indicated that the machine was in proper working condition at the time of the accident. The records and inspection reports contradicted the allegation that the machine was in a defective state during the incident (!) (!) (!) .
The medical examination of the petitioner showed no permanent disability, and the medical certificates indicated that he did not suffer any lasting impairment or loss of earning capacity. Consequently, his claim for compensation was dismissed (!) (!) .
The legal proceedings involved a challenge to the denial of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the responsible officers. The court examined whether the officers acted in their official capacity or whether their actions constituted a dereliction of duty that would require prior sanction (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that prosecution of public servants requires that the act be done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, and that the act must have a sufficient connection to their official responsibilities. Mere involvement in an act during office hours or holding office does not automatically warrant protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the responsible officers, Pramod Kumar and Nishok Kumar Paria, performed their supervisory duties in accordance with their roles and responsibilities, which did not include direct operational control of the machinery at the moment of the incident (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicated that the petitioner himself failed to follow standard safety procedures, such as informing the machine operator or switching off the machine before attempting to remove the jammed paper. This procedural lapse was identified as the proximate cause of the injury (!) (!) .
The court concluded that there was no evidence to establish criminal negligence or misconduct by the officers, and that the sanction order had adequately considered all relevant facts, including the absence of any documented defect or prior repair requisition. The order was reasoned and proper (!) (!) .
As a result, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the denial of sanction was justified and that the prosecution could not be initiated without proper prior approval, given the absence of sufficient evidence of culpability on the part of the officers involved (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the Sanction Order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, whereby Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. against Pramod Kumar, Technical Officer (Retired), and Nishok Kumar Paria, the then Deputy Manager, Government of India Press, New Delhi, in FIR No. 0059/2018, P.S. Mayapuri, under Sections 287 /337 IPC , has been declined, and further to seek directions to grant Sanction for the prosecution of the two Accused in the said FIR.
2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner was was working as a Machine Attendant, in the Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi. On 23.04.2018, he was working on the Printing Machine which was in a damaged condition, information regarding which had already been sent by him to the concerned Officers many days prior to the accident. On 23.04.2018, the Petitioner had informed Technical Officer Pramod Kumar and Nishok Kumar Paria, the then in-charge of the second shift, about the fault. Not only the Petitioner, but even other workers, namely Yogeshwar Mahto and K.P. Appan (both Machine Men), and Sri Ram and Trilok Chand (both Attendants), had also informed the Officers about the defect and warned that operating the said machine would be dangerous.
3. The information given by the Petitioner about Mechanical Defect (MD) was also mentioned in the Log Book. Despite prior information about the fault, the Officers forced the Petitioner to work on the damaged machine. At about 7 PM, the machine suddenly stopped and a paper got stuck in the machine. The Petitioner engaged the stopper and tried to take the paper out of the machine. However, as he was trying to pull out the stuck paper from the machine, it started running suddenly because of its fault, and the Petitioner's left arm below the elbow, got damaged. It is claimed that this was due to the negligence in service, bad maintenance, and irresponsibility of the concerned Officers who, despite prior information about the fault in the machine, allowed and forced the Petitioner to work on it.
4. The Petitioner, was immediately sent to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, along with Shri Chander Pal, Pharmacist, Pramod Kumar, Technical Officer, and Nishok Kumar Paria, in-charge, second shift. The Police officials then reached the hospital and recorded his statement, based on which FIR No. 0059/2018, under Sections 287 /337 IPC , dated 23.04.2018, was registered at PS Mayapuri.
5. During the investigation, the Machine was inspected by Shri Pinkesh Kumar, Inspector of Factories, GNCTD of Delhi who submitted the Inspection Report dated 31.05.2018. The Petitioner has asserted that the Inspection Report clearly reflects the irresponsibility of the concerned Officers.
6. It is further stated that Claim No. EAR (I) 16/SWD/19 was filed by the concerned IO before the Labor Commissioner, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, who, on the Application of the Petitioner, sent a Letter dated 10.01.2020 to the Medical Board, DDU Hospital, New Delhi, for his medical examination. The arm of the Petitioner was operated on and was bolted with steel plates. All the fingers of the left arm had been badly damaged. The steel plates bolted inside the arm have now slipped/dislocated from their place, and the Petitioner is under continuous unbearable pain. He is undergoing treatment at RML Hospital, New Delhi.
7. The Medical Board examined the Petitioner, but did not certify any permanent disability in the Certificate dated 31.01.2020. On the Application of the Petitioner, the Labor Commissioner again sent a Letter to the Medical Board for re-examination of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was again examined and no permanent disability of the Petitioner was certified. It is claimed that the second Certificate dated 16.03.2020, gave the similar observations by merely copying the content the same lines a
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
