Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 274 (GAU)

Jogesh Chandra Das v. State of Tripura

2001-09-13

AFTAB H.SAIKIA

body2001
I have heard Mr. AK Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, Tripura for the respondent. 2. By this criminal revision, the petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur dismissing both the Criminal Appeal No. 8 (1 )/96 and Criminal Appeal No. 9 (l)/96 by this common judgment affirming the conviction of the petitioners under section 3 79/304A IPC read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, (for sort herein after called as Act), held by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Udaipur, South Tripura in Case No.GR 389/1991 by his judgment dated 27.12.95 sentencing the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 only each in default to suffer / imprisonment for another 15 days. 3. The prosecution case in brief is mat one Naresh Chandra Das while went out to catch fish in a river at about 1.30 AM on 15.9.91, died due to electrocution on coming into contact with the unauthorised electric hook line drawn by the accused petitioners along with four others. Having received mass representation from the villagers in this regard, the SDO (Electrical) lodged ejahar with the Kakraban Police Outpost on 19.9.91. The police having registered a criminal case under sections 304A/379 IPC, ensued investigation. On completion of the said investi­gation the police submitted charge sheets under aforesaid sections against the petitioners along with four others namely, (1) Shri Thakur Chand Das, (2) Shri Kalimohan Das, (3) Jadu Das, and (4) Shri Priyalal Das. The accused Jadu Das being absconded, the trial commenced against the remaining five accused persons including the present petitioners. On completion of the trial, one accused namely Shri Priyalal Das got acquittal and the petitioners along with two others namely Thakur Chand Das and Kalimohan Das were convicted under section 304A/379 EPC read with section 39 of the Act and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, in default 15 days more imprisonment. 4. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners forcefully argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered that the SDO (Electrical) was not a competent person under section 50 of the Act to initiate prosecution in the instant case. 2,000 each, in default 15 days more imprisonment. 4. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners forcefully argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered that the SDO (Electrical) was not a competent person under section 50 of the Act to initiate prosecution in the instant case. It is stated that the SDO (Electrical) is not a person as mentioned in the said section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act reads as under: "50. Institution of prosecutions - No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any rule, license or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government (or a State Electricity Board) or an (Electrical Inspector), or of a person aggrieved by the same." 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1965 SC 666 wherein the Apex Court held that prosecution in respect of offence under the Act would be incompetent unless it was instituted at the instance of a person named in section 50. Claiming the SDO (electrical) is not a person mentioned in section 50 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision ^ of Rajasthan High Court in Dhoolchand vs. State reported in 1957 CrI LJ 233 wherein the Single Bench of the said High Court held that me Superintendent Electrical and Mechanical Department of the Govt is not an officer of the Govt and he should not be said to be a person aggrieved by the offence. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel, the SDO (Electrical) is not a person aggrieved and as such, present prosecution cannot stand on that count. 6. Defending the impugned judgment Mr. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that SDO (Electrical) under the Govt of Tripura is the authorised person to act under section 50 of the Act and, as such, he can be well said as the person aggrieved to initiate prosecution in the instant case. To substantiate his argument, he has placed reliance of a decision of Patna High Court in Hardwar / Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1976 Crl LJ 942. To substantiate his argument, he has placed reliance of a decision of Patna High Court in Hardwar / Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1976 Crl LJ 942. In the case of Hardwar Singh (supra), dealing with Avtar Singh's case (supra), held that the Electrical Engineer is 'person aggrieved' and he is the competent person to initiate the prosecution' at his instance. 7.1 have carefully scanned and scrutinised the impugned judgment and on perusal of the same, I have found that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire facts involved in the case thoroughly and on proper appreciation of evidence and material available records arrived at the findings that SDO (Electrical) being a Govt servant is a competent person to initiate the prosecution against the petitioners. I am in agreement with the said view. On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the relevant records, it appears that the SDO (Electrical) on getting information of the instant case of electrocution, had personally enquired into the matter and found the naked wire throughout the watery area hooked illegally from the electric post in the area and the said hook line was disconnected by him. Thereafter, he lodged written complaint with the police. That being the position, I hereby held that the SDO (Electrical) as a competent person being 'a person aggrieved' in terms of section 50 of the Act. 8. Having considered the ratio of the above noted decision and upon hearing the learned counsel of the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or material irregularity committed in passing the impugned judgment and the same deserves no interference of this Court. 9. At this stage Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the occurrence took place long back on 15.9.91 and the petitioners are the poor persons and only bread earners of the family, their sentences to suffer the imprisonment for one month may be modified to the extent of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000 each instead of Rs.2,000 as held by the Courts below. On consideration of such submission, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioners are modified confining only to the payment of Rs. 1,000 c each which I do accordingly. 1,000 each instead of Rs.2,000 as held by the Courts below. On consideration of such submission, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioners are modified confining only to the payment of Rs. 1,000 c each which I do accordingly. It is made clear that the said payment shall be made by the petitioners to the wife of the victim-deceased Naresh Chandra Das on proper identification by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udaipur, South Tripura within period of three months from today failing which they shall have to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 (seven) days. 10. For the reasons, discussions and observation indicated above, this revision is disposed of.