SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28671

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
C VENUGOPAL AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 201357 / 2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201357 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. C VENUGOPAL S/O LATE Y CHIKKABASAVAYYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD. TECHNICAL DIRECTOR KPCL, R/O.NO. 113, 1ST CROSS, 14TH BLOCK, BDA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560072 2. G HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: RETD.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (BOCM), KPCL, R/O. 125, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR JAI RAMDAS BUS STOP, FOREST LAYOUT, INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE, RAILWAY GATE, NEXT TO MRUTHYUNJAYA NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, R.V.NIKETANA COLLEGE, BENGALURU-560059 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES, RAICHUR DIVISION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UDAYNAGAR STATION ROAD, RAICHUR TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584170 REPTD. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURGAI BENCH, DIST: KALABURAGI-585103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS(NEW) PRAYING THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM RAICHUR AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23-07-2024 PASSED IN CRL.RP NO. 46/2021 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND RAICHUR AND ORDER DATED 15-06-2021 PASSED IN CC NO.11/2017 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM RAICHUR, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 U/S 101 OF THE FACTORIES ACT, AS PRAYED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

Petitioners are before this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, assailing the order dated 15.06.2021 passed in C.C.No.11/2017 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Raichur and the order dated 23.07.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.46/2021 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein with a prayer to prosecute them for having committed an offences under the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 25.10.2016, in the factory of M/s. Raichur Thermal Power Station owned by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, a contract worker fell down at pergola area of first floor from a height of about 13 meters and sustained multiple fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to KPCL hospital and subsequently to Yashoda Hospital at Hyderabad and then to Osmania Hospital at Hyderabad, but the said worker succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.

4. The petitioners, who are the occupier and the manager of the aforesaid factory were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint. In the said proceedings the petitioners had filed an application under section 101 of the Factories Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as ‘Act, 1948’), contending that the construction work of green building for administrative purpose was awarded to a contractor by name M/s. Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad and the deceased worker, Ramraj s/o Kirun Ram was the employee of the said contractor. As per the terms of the contract, the responsibility to provide personal safety equipments and provide safety measures at the place of construction etc., was on the contractor and therefore petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences and on the other hand the contractor to whom the work of construction was awarded was required to be prosecuted for the alleged offences. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned dated 15.06.2021, rejected the said application which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top