O R D E R

The petitioners 1 to 3 are the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, General Manager and Electrical Engineer of M/s.Precot Meridian Limited. On 26/04/2018, being the day of power shut down, the 1st petitioner requested one V.J.Joseph, a labour contractor, to send his staff to carry out the general electrical maintenance work in his company. Accordingly, V.J.Joseph send three of his staff (Anandkumar, Ramesh Kumar and Shaji) to attend the maintenance work. These three staff went to the petitioner company and were working at the premise of the petitioner company from 9.00 a.m. At about 4.15 p.m., Anandkumar and Ramesh Kumar scaled upon the stool and were attending the machine wires in unit 2 and Shaji squatting on the floor was attending the Panel Board. Suddenly, Shaji became speechless and unconscious. He was taken to the hospital but dead on the way.

2. Anand Kumar gave complaint to the respondent police narrating the above facts and the respondent police registered F.I.R in Crime.No.73/2018 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Initially, it was suspected to be death due to cardiac problem. The respondent police from the post-mortem report suspecting the said Shaji might have died due to electrocution, altered the charge to Section 304(A) I.P.C and filed the final report stating that, due to the negligence of the petitioners herein, by not providing sufficient protecting gears, the deceased died due to electrocution. The Final Report was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate II, Pollachi in C.C.No.546/2018 for offences under Section 287 and 304(A) I.P.C.

3. The criminal prosecution is impugned by the petitioners alleging, the respondent police has no authority to initiate criminal prosecution, while the Deputy Director, Factories Safety and Health Department, Pollachi, has launched criminal prosecution for the very same offence and got the accused convicted. Therefore, the Final Report by the Police violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution and hit by the principle of DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Further, the deceased Shaji was not under employment of the petitioner’s company. He was working under the contractor V.J.Joseph. Any safety gears required, that ought to have been provided by the said Joseph and not by the petitioners. Prosecuting the petitioners, who are not responsible to provide safety gears and who were not even present in the company at the time of occurrence, cannot be prosecuted for negligence. The prosecution being manifestly erroneous and unjust liable to be quashed.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, soon after the accident, the Inspector of Factories caused inspection of the Company premises and through the Deputy Director of Factories filed two private complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. C.C.No.255/2018 against the Manager of the Company Mr.Shanmugam alleging violation of Section 41 read with Rule 61 F and Section 88 read with Rule 96(1)(2) (2 counts) and C.C.No.256/2018 against Chandran, the Chairman-cum-Manager Director of the Company for violation of Section 7(A)(1)(2) and Section 41 read with Rule 61 F read with Section 92 of the Act. In both the complaints, the persons accused of the offence pleaded guilty and the Court convicted them and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each in default 1 month Simple Imprisonment. While so, for the same offence there cannot be another prosecution under Sections 287 and 304(A) of I.P.C by the state police.

5. In support of his argument, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following judgments:-

(i). B.P.Ram -vs- State of M.P reported in (1991) 0 ACJ 931.

(ii). Dr.Jeppiar and Another -vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in

2012 0 Supreme (Mad) 4774.

(iii). P.Dinesh -vs- The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tambaram, Chennai, in Crl.O.P.No.13924 of 2017 unreported judgment dated

11/11/2011 by Madras High Court.

6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

representing the state submitted that