N.Jayaram vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer, P.H.Division, Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam. He was retired from the service on 31.12.2018. He is implicated as the first accused in Crime No.859 of 2018 of Mannarkad Police Station, which was registered on the complaint of the second respondent. The offences alleged are those under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the crime was registered at the instance of the second respondent and on the complaint that, while travelling on the scooter through NH-183 from Mannarkad (Kottayam) towards Kottayam side, the scooter of the second respondent happened to overturn on account of a heap of sand, which was kept in the side of the road owing to some work carried out by the Kerala Water Authority. It is submitted that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, the District Head of the Kerala Water Authority. It is submitted that, even assuming that the statement of the second respondent is true, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be made an accused in the case.

It is submitted that the work was carried out not under the supervision of the petitioner or on his instructions. It is submitted that the work was carried out possibly by the local officials and the petitioner was not in any manner involved in the same. It is submitted that the petitioner has been unnecessarily made an accused in the case and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the proceedings against the petitioner amount to an abuse of process.

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would vehemently oppose the grant of relief. It is submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner was in any way responsible for the negligent act of the subordinate officials is a matter to be proved a trial and is not a matter for consideration in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner was working as the Executive Engineer, P.H.Division, Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam and was, at the relevant time, the District Head of the Kerala Water Authority at Kottayam and was not in any manner in control or supervising the work in question.

The reading of Annexure-A6 final report would suggest that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for having committed the offences under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted herein below;

“336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.

Classification of Offence- The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.

Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Classification of Offence.- The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending and triable by any Magistrate.

Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Classification of Offence.- The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending and triable by any Magistrate.”

It is seen from a reading of each of the provisions under which the petitioner has been charged that in order to be penalized under the aforesaid Sections, there must be a rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. A reading of the final report does not suggest that there is even an allegation that the petitioner was directly responsible and had committed a rash and negligent act making him liable for commission of offences under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Penal statute call for strict interpretation. Therefore, I am of the view that the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code will not lie, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.241 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam will stand quashed.