The negligence of faculty members in failing to prevent students from entering a dangerous area constituted criminal negligence under IPC.

Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present criminal revision, under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

to as the Cr.PC) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 08.02.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Cr. Mf.A. No.1336/2022, titled as A. Aditya & Others versus State of H.P.

2. By way of order dtated 08.02.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 258 of the Cr.PC, for discharging them, from the case titled as State versus Mohinder Singh & Others, arising out of FIR No.61/14, dated 8.06.2014, under Sectiohns 336 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (ghereinafter referred to as the IPC), registered with Police iStation Aut, District Mandi, H.P., in which, the present petitioners have been arrayed as accused No.7 to 9.

3. Order dated 8.2.2024, rejecting the application for discharge, has been assailed before this Court, on the ground, that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that the entire prosecution case, for the offences, under Sections 336 and 304-A IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The order has further been assailed on the ground that during investigation, it has been found that the incident had taken place due to the failure on the part of concerned electricity and dam authorities, i.e., A-1 to A- 6, who acted with culpable rashness fand negligence in releasing the huge quantity of water, without following the official protocol. t

5. Elaborating their stand, it is the specific case of the petitioners that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that in the investigation, it has been held that the Dam and Electricity Board authorities have failed to take hprecautions, i.e., having warning hooters in working cgonditions, that no guard was there to guard anyone of any idanger from the shallow waters of the river, no danger board was there to caution anyone that water may be released at any time and that it was mandatory for a jeep to go around with a siren, cautioning anyone and everyone, that water will soon be released from the Dam, as such, held the Dam and Electricity Board guilty of sheer negligence and lack of care.

6. The order has further been assailed on the ground that the learned Magistrate has failed to see the fact that the prosecution, after having gathered such meticulous and detailed information pinning down on the severe negligence and utter carelessnefss on the part of these Dam and Electricity Board officials i.e., A-1 to A-6, held them liable for the offentces under Sections 336 and

304 IPC.

7. The order has further been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that the petitioners have not been charged with the substantive Sectiohns of law i.e. Sections 336 and 304-A IPC, but, they hgave been named as accused, by applying Section 34 IPC.

iAccording to the petitioners, Section 34 is not applicable, in the present case and the learned trial Court has dealt with the matter, as if the petitioners are directly liable under Sections 336 and 304 IPC.

8. The order has further been assailed on the ground that learned trial Court has wrongly fixed the liability on the petitioners, under Sections 336 and 304-A IPC. According to the petitioners, the learned trial Court has also failed to see that to impose criminal liability, either under Section 336 IPC or Section 304 IPC, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be proximate and the efficient cfause, without the intervention of negligence by any other.

9. On the basis of tthe above gro