Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J
SHRI.A.MOHAMMED SHAFI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/8390/2016
Quash - Prosecution - Section 300 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC, Section 92 Factories Act - The court upheld that the accused's plea regarding prior conviction barred further prosecution under Section 300 Cr.P.C., declining to quash the proceedings as appropriate remedy lies in trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, managing director of a company, faces prosecution for offences under IPC due to a fatal accident at the workplace. He pled guilty earlier to a factory violation, paying a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. inappropriate as the petitioner had other remedies available in the trial court concerning the bar on prosecution under Section 300 Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the prosecution against the petitioner is barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. given the previous conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner should have raised the issue of prosecution's bar in the trial court instead of seeking quashing through Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed.
ORDER
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE -----------------------
NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2017
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.Petitioner is the accused in CC No.102 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad. He is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 304 (A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code . He is said to be the Managing Director of a company. In the factory belonging to the company, an accident took place, which resulted in the death of one of the workers and injury to another worker. It is alleged that the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act and on his pleading guilty, he was sentenced to pay a penalty of ₹27,000/- The prayer is to quash the proceedings in CC No.102/2016 on the ground that the prosecution is barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.The petitioner is a resident of Palakkad where the trial court is situated. No reason has been stated for his approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of approaching the trial court. The ordinary remedy of the petitioner is to approach the court below and bring to its notice that the prosecution is hit by Section 300 Cr.P.C. This is not a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner may plead in the trial court that he is not liable to be tried.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
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
