Venkatesan vs State by Inspector of Police

C.T. Selvam, J.—The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 550 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Neyveli & Cuddalore District, as against him.

In complaint dated 10.08.2005, the respondent has registered a case in Cr. No. 213 of 2005 initially u/s 174 Cr.P.C., subsequently altered to

one of 304A IPC. The complainant informed of an accidental death met by one A. Pushparaj, S/o. Arulappan, while working on behalf of the

concern Radha Engineering Works Ltd., at the Thermal-I Extension site, Neyveli. Owing to unexpected slippage and falling of coal, the deceased

got entangled between the ''Conveyor belt'' and pulley, at about 7.40 pm, on 09.08.2005. When taken to hospital, the duty Doctor informed that

he would have died at about 8.20 pm. The respondent after investigation has filed a charge sheet on 21.09.2005 for offences u/s 304A IPC

against four persons. The allegation against the petitioner, as the owner of Radha Engineering Works Ltd. and also his staff was that, they had

failed to provide the requisite safety equipments, despite their knowledge that in the absence thereof, the employee would be in danger. Two other

accused viz., Site Engineer and Supervisor were charged on the ground that they had insisted on the deceased carrying out his work in the absence

of security equipment.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was an admitted case that the

petitioner who was the owner of the company engaged on contract for the Thermal-I Extension Project, was not anywhere near the scene of

occurrence when the accident occurred. The petitioner''s name did not find a place in the First Information Report. The deceased had never been

under the employment of the petitioner. The very FIR informed that when the deceased was working in clearing the coal, a heap of coal in the

conveyor fell therefrom in an unexpected manner, whereby the deceased met with the accident. In such circumstances, no rash and negligent act

could be attributed to the petitioner for a charge u/s 304A IPC, to hold good. It was necessary that the act complained of must be the Causa

Causons, i.e. the immediate cause.

Learned senior Counsel placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court. In Public Prosecutor v. Pitchaiah Moopanar alias Pitchaiah Pillai 1969

LW (Crl.) 158, wherein death of several children have been caused owing to the collapse of a school building. This Court, on the facts of such

case observed that,

...It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent himself constructed the building. It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the

masons and the masons constructed the building. If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the

lime and mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building,

who are supposed to be skilled. The respondent is a lay man. He therefore, cannot be held liable for the negligence of the persons who actually

constructed the building, which negligence is the Causa Causons for the collapse of the building.

In such case, this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla Vs. State of

Maharashtra, , wherein it was held that,

death must be direct result of the rash or negligent act of accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another''s negligence

and it must be the cause causans, and it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.

Drawing a parallel, learned senior Counsel submits that in the instant case, the admitted position was that the petitioner as the Contractor was

carrying out the work at the place of occurrence by engaging others.

In A. Venkataraman v. State 1989 LW (Crl.) 382, this Court dealt with a case wherein a labourer had met his death owing to he and others

engaged in digging mud around a boulder, not taking adequate care. On consideration that none of the witnesses implicated the petitioner in the

crime, that it was admitted by prosecution that the petitioner therein was not present at the scene and that it was not the case of the prosecution

that the petitioner had directed any particular work to be done on the fateful day in any particular mode which would even prima facie indicate lack

of due care and caution before permitting the labourers to undertake such arduous task, this Court found that there was no material whatsoever to

connect the petitioner with the crime and if any trial is allowed to be conducted on the materials put forth by the prosecution it would be nothing but

a mock trial and an exercise in futility.

Learned senior Counsel submitted that given the facts of the present case, the above observation would squarely apply also hereto.

Learned Government Advocate in response to the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble

Apex Court in Bhalchandra @ Bapu and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra CDJ 1968 SC 246, wherein after detailed consideration of the law on the

subject, the Apex Court held that criminal negligence could be found in varying sets of circumstances. On the facts of the particular case, the Apex

Court held that the appellants before it had undoubtedly displayed a high degree of negligence by allowing or causing to be used dangerous and

prohibited compositions and substances which must be held to have been the sufficient cause of the explosion, wherein 11 persons died and 7

persons were injured. It might be mentioned that in such case the appellants before the Apex Court held licences under the Indian Explosives Act

1884 and the rules framed thereunder, to manufacture, possess and sell fire works and gun powder not exceeding 200 pounds and to possess and

sell safety fuses. Their contention had been that on the facts of the case it was not possible to hold that they were responsible for the explosion or

had done anything which could be regarded as a direct and immediate cause thereof. As above stated and on the facts of the particular case, the

Apex Court found otherwise.

On consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that no offence u/s 304A IPC stands made out against the petitioner herein.

The petitioner was not so much as present at the scene of occurrence and he cannot be said to have any role in the accident, contributory or

otherwise. For the aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 550/2005 on the file of the Learned District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli & Cuddalore District as against this petitioner shall stand quashed.