JUDGMENT Das, J. - This is an appeal by the Government of West Bengal against an order of acquittal u/s 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Police Magistrate, Sealdah, on June 25, 1948, in a case under Rule 69(1)(b) of rules framed under the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The Respondent before us is the manager of the Calcutta Hydraulic Press Company, Limited. The company has a godown at No. 9, Kaliprasanna Singha Street, Chitpore. The godown has a flat roof with raised sloping shed of corrugated iron-sheets to provide ventilation into the godown. The lower edge of the sloping iron roof will be about two feet from the main flat roof and the upper end of the sloping roof will be about eight feet from the flat roof. The flat roof itself is inaccessible from the ground except by means of a ladder. It is, however, quite easy to get on to the sloping roof from the flat roof at its lower end which is only two feet from the flat roof and to walk along the sloping roof up to the top of the upper end. It appears that 230 volts A.C. bare aerial electric conductors run over the roof of the godown and are about one foot above the top end of the sloping iron roof. 3. On May 28, 1947, one B.N. Barhua, an employee of the company, went on the roof of the godown to ascertain if the aerial lines were faulty. While working on the sloping iron roof over the ventilation apertures Barhua came into contact with the live bare aerial wires running overhead and was electrocuted. It is alleged that Barhua was not an authorised person in terms of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules. After the occurrence, the Electric Inspector of the Government of West Bengal went to the place of occurrence and demanded production of the list which is required to be maintained under Rule 3, but no such list, it is alleged, was produced. 4. On September 26, 1947, the Electric Inspector filed a petition of complaint against the company and its manager, the Respondent before us, charging them under Rule 124 of the Electricity Rules for breaches of Rule 69(1)(b), Rule 3(3) and Rule 3(4). 5. One prosecution witness, namely, Mr. N. Das Gupta, the Electric Inspector, was examined on behalf of the prosecution. On September 26, 1947, the Electric Inspector filed a petition of complaint against the company and its manager, the Respondent before us, charging them under Rule 124 of the Electricity Rules for breaches of Rule 69(1)(b), Rule 3(3) and Rule 3(4). 5. One prosecution witness, namely, Mr. N. Das Gupta, the Electric Inspector, was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He deposed as follows: I went on the site of the accident, viz., on the roof of the godown. It is a flat roof. There were four ventilation apertures made of corrugated iron sheets on the roof of the godown. The apertures were of triangular shape--right angle triangular shape. I climbed the roof with the aid of the ladder. The ladder was already fixed there. I found overhead electric lines--running over the ventilating apertures. From the flat roof, the line was about eight feet high but the line was within one foot from the top of the ventilating apertures. There was no difficulty in mounting the apertures from the roof. It could be done without ladder or any other article. The line was easily accessible from the ventilating apertures. The overhead line conductor was carrying 230 volts A.C. 6. A man of the name of Makhanlal Ray was the only witness examined on behalf of the accused. He deposed that he worked in the Calcutta Hydraulic Press for five years and there were no stairs to get on to the roof. He further stated that by means of temporary ladders the employees could get on the ventilators of the roof and that for five years since he had been working there he noticed the overhead wiring. He personally never went on to the roof. 7. The learned Magistrate in his judgment found that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the accused contravened Rule 69(1)(6) of the Electricity Rules and, as such, he found them not guilty and acquitted them u/s 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, however, did not deal with the charges under Rule 3(3) and 3(4). The Government has now preferred this appeal. 8. Rule 69 of the Electricity Rules runs as follows: Height from ground and distance from buildings. The learned Magistrate, however, did not deal with the charges under Rule 3(3) and 3(4). The Government has now preferred this appeal. 8. Rule 69 of the Electricity Rules runs as follows: Height from ground and distance from buildings. (i) Every conductor of an aerial line (not being a trolley-wire or a traction* feeder on the same support as a trolley-wire) shall be-- (a) at least 20 feet above the ground where it is over any part of a street or other public place; (b) inaccessible, either from the ground or from any building or structure, whether permanent or temporary, except by the aid of a ladder or other special appliance. (2) Where an aerial line is on a consumer's or an owner's premises the height of every conductor from the ground or from any mineral or refuse dump and from parts of buildings or structures to which persons have access shall, unless the conductors are adequately guarded, be not less than fifteen feet or such greater height as may be necessary to prevent danger. (3) The owner of the aerial line shall be responsible for ensuring that the provisions of sub-Rule (1) and (2) are observed. 9. It is quite clear from the wording of the rule that the aerial line has to be made inaccessible not only from the ground but also from any building or structure except by the aid of a ladder or other special appliance. The object of the rule apparently is to prevent danger to persons by ensuring that they may not come into contact with live electric line. This consideration, of safety necessarily requires that the aerial line shall be inaccessible from the ground as well as from any building or structure. If the roof of a building is accessible-from the ground by means of a staircase there can be no doubt that people will use the staircase and get on to the roof and it is not disputed that to ensure the safety of such people the electric line must, under the rule, be made inaccessible from the roof. If, however, the roof of a building is not ordinarily accessible by a permanent staircase, it is quite conceivable that there may be occasion for people to go to the roof to effect repairs to the roof or for other purposes. If, however, the roof of a building is not ordinarily accessible by a permanent staircase, it is quite conceivable that there may be occasion for people to go to the roof to effect repairs to the roof or for other purposes. Even in such a case the underlying reason of the rule requires that the live electric line should be so run that these persons may not come into contact with them. Therefore, it is necessary that the aerial line should not only be made inaccessible from the ground, but also inaccessible from any building or structure or any part thereof where a person may go by whatever means it may be, so that a person whether he is on the ground or in or upon any part of the building, may not come into contact with the live-electric line. This consideration of safety in all cases appears to me to be the reason why provision has been made for making the line inaccessible from any building or structure. That, in my opinion, is what the rule contemplates and what its language means. Sub-rule (2) also clearly supports this view. If it were otherwise and if the only requirement was that the aerial line should be made inaccessible from the ground, then the other words of Sub-rule (1) would have been redundant. 10. There is no doubt in this case that the aerial line is inaccessible from the ground directly. The question is whether the aerial line is also inaccessible from the godown itself except by the aid of a ladder or other special appliance. 11. The learned Magistrate in his judgment made the following observation: ...so far as ventilators are concerned, they are neither buildings nor structures and, to get on the roof where the ventilators were, one was to use ladders and unless that was done the roof as well as the ventilators are inaccessible. 12. It is impossible to hold, with the learned Magistrate, that the ventilators are neither buildings nor structures. The fact that the roof and the ventilators on it are inaccessible from the ground except by means of a ladder cannot alter the physical fact that they are integral parts of the godown building and in any event are structures. 12. It is impossible to hold, with the learned Magistrate, that the ventilators are neither buildings nor structures. The fact that the roof and the ventilators on it are inaccessible from the ground except by means of a ladder cannot alter the physical fact that they are integral parts of the godown building and in any event are structures. If the aerial line is accessible from the ventilators which are on the roof of the godown, it cannot be said that they are inaccessible from the building or the structure as a whole. 13. The evidence in this case is that one cannot get to the roof without the aid of a ladder but once a person gets to the roof it is quite easy for him to climb the sloping roof of the ventilators iron the flat roof. There is no dispute that the aerial line runs only a foot above the top end of the sloping roof. Therefore, although the roof is inaccessible from the ground except by means of a ladder and the electric line is directly inaccessible from the ground yet it cannot be said to have been made inaccessible from the roof or the ventilators on the roof of the godown so as to prevent the danger of contact to a person who may happen to climb up to the roof. In these circumstances it is quite clear that there has been in this case a breach of Rule 69(1)(b). 14. For reasons stated above, I am of opinion that this appeal should be allowed. The penalty for breach of the Rules is provided in Rule 124. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, I think it will be sufficient to convict the Respondent before us and impose on him a reasonable fine. I, therefore, find him guilty of an offence under Rule 69(2)(6) of the Electricity Rules and impose a fine of Rs. 100, and in default of payment of fine one month's simple imprisonment. 15. As I have already mentioned, the learned Magistrate did not deal with the charges under Rule 3(5) and 3(4). In view of the fact that those charges also arise out of the same occurrence, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by sending back the case for re-trial on those charges. The Respondent is acquitted of those charges. Harries C.J. 16. I agree.