Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 956 (PAT)

Benu Krishna Mandal And Others v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-04

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Hatia P.S. Case No. 109 of 1995 (GR. No. 1477 of 1995) including the order dated 14.8.1997 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance for the offence under Secs. 287, 288, 337 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case giving rise to this application is that one Ram Prakash Saksana lodged First Information Report alleging that on 13.6.1995 the site-in-charge, Engineer and others of Blue Star were working on erection of cooling tower. The cooling tower was being lifted on the roof of main building about 30 by pulleys chains, ballis and ropes, etc. At about 1.30 p.m. suddenly the rope broke away and one Mazdoor Md. Ishaque fell down along with the cooling tower and failed. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Jeevan Look Hospital than to Save Sadan and on their advice to R.M.C.S. where the injured was declared dead. It was alleged that due to negligence on the part of the owner and site-in-charge of Blue Star ltd., the occurrence took place. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. 3. Mr. M.M. Benerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the very outset submitted that the said accident occurred on account of mistake of Md. Ishaque, the deceased himself. There was spot inquiry by the factory Inspector, Ranchi who submitted a report on 30.9.1995, according to which the cause of accident was found on account of mistake of the deceased and the Factory Inspector was fully satisfied that the pulleys, Chains, etc. used for the purpose were of sufficient strength and capable of many times more then registered weight of the tower vide Annexure-2, it is also submitted that there is no evidence for conspiracy and there is nothing specific to indicate as to what roll played by the petitioners. It is also requed that M/s. Jenson & Nicholeon (India) Ltd. gave a contract for air conditioning system to M/s Blue Star Co. Ltd. vide order dated 25.10.1994 and M/s Blue Star Co. Ltd. gave the work of erection and commissioning vide order dated 20.6.1995 to Md. It is also requed that M/s. Jenson & Nicholeon (India) Ltd. gave a contract for air conditioning system to M/s Blue Star Co. Ltd. vide order dated 25.10.1994 and M/s Blue Star Co. Ltd. gave the work of erection and commissioning vide order dated 20.6.1995 to Md. Ishaque, a Sub-contractor and the said contractor on 13.6.1995 made necessary arrangements for lifting the cooling tower to be installed over the roof of the main building. After getting over the roof the said Md. Ishaque was giving instruction as how to bring the tower over the roof but suddenly Md. Safeer came in contact with the steel rope and the pole slipped and the cooling tower along with the steel chains, etc. started coming down bringing Md. Ishaque along with it and it was purely an accident due to mistake of Md. Safeer and there is nothing specific or any iota of evidence against the petitioner to connect them for the alleged offence and as such the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 4. On the other hard, Mr. N.N. Mahto, the learned A.P.P. contended before me that the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance against the petitioners. 5. From the inquiry report (Annexure-2), it is apparent that the factory Inspector inspected the spot and submitted the report on 30.9.1995. According to which the cause of accident was on account of mistake of Md. Safeer. The Factory Inspector was fully satisfied that the pulleys, chains etc. used for the purpose of were sufficient and capable of many times more than the registered weight of the tower and there is nothing specific to show that the petitioners had any hard in the alleged accident. None of the petitioners is said to be site-in-charge and the work was also carried on by the sub-contractor. In absence of any thing specific against the petitioners, they cannot be held responsible for the said accident. Moreover the inquiry report of the Factory Inspector does not state any thing against the petitioners. The impugned order taking cognizance is also cryptic as no any evidence whatever collected against the petitioners has been discussed in the said order. The order of cognizance should not be passed in mechanical manner and the evidence collected during investigation should have been discussed so as to ventilate the over tact on the person arraigned. The impugned order taking cognizance is also cryptic as no any evidence whatever collected against the petitioners has been discussed in the said order. The order of cognizance should not be passed in mechanical manner and the evidence collected during investigation should have been discussed so as to ventilate the over tact on the person arraigned. There is no doubt that the deceased died due to accident and there appears nothing specific to show as to what overt act attributed to the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the fact and circus tance of the case, in my view, there would be misues of process of Court if the prosecution is allowed to continue in the instant case. Thus I find merit in the application which is accordingly allowed. In the result, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.8.1997 taking cognizance is, hereby, quashed. Revision allowed.