Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1506 (PAT)

S. K. Sood v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-14

S.C.JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioners S.K. Sood, Ex-Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway Workshop, Jamalpur, Munger, presently posted as Dean and Sr. Professor (UGT), Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Munger and Permanand Sharma, Ex-Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Project), Eastern Railway Workshop, Jamalpur, Munger, presently posted as Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Coach/Wagon), Eastern Railway, Kancharapara (West Bengal) have filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 22.6.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No. 63C7/2004, presently pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, for offence under Sec. 55A(2) of the Factories Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The opposite party no. 2 Vinay Kumar, Inspector of Factory, Munger Anchal, Munger, has lodged prosecution report to this effect that on 1.9.2003 there was an accident in Messers Locomotive and General Engineering Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Munger, in which Chandra Shekhar Singh, the working employee, died due to accident. On enquiry it was found that the accident was caused due to the work taken in insecured manner by the Management. The opposite party no. 2 Vinay Kumar obtained information of accident in Form 17A from the Management of Messers Locomotive and General Engineering Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Munger. A detailed enquiry, as alleged, was made by the complainant on 5.9.2003 regarding place of occurrence, statement of co-workers present at the place of occurrence, work to be performed by the injured person, safety arrangement done by the Management and cause of accident and the person responsible for the same and after holding enquiry he submitted report to this effect that accident took place due to repair of Railway Wagon and Chandra Shekhar Singh died as pressed under operation of the bottom door. The side switch board of the Wagon was removed by the Management Locomotive and General Engineering Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Munger, which was being used for the purpose of opening and closing the bottom door of Wagon, and the door was being opened and closed by the switch board placed at the distance of 15 feet and the same was not seen by the deceased at the time of accident. The valve was opened which could not be seen by the deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh and, as such, he was trapped in the door and died. The valve was opened which could not be seen by the deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh and, as such, he was trapped in the door and died. So, the Management of the petitioners was held to be not proper, who were taking work from the deceased worker in unsafe manner. 4. It has been submitted that enquiry was also held by Chief Safety Officer of the Railways, which would show that late Chandra Shekhar Singh, Yogendra Prasad and Dayanand Prasad Yadav were working inside the Wagon No. BOBRN-108043/ ER. As soon as caution sound was heard, all went out immediately but Chandra Shekhar Singh saw that the long pull rod was left hanging with a view to binding the pull rod of the Wagon, which usually takes a few seconds and the doors usually close after some minutes, entered the wagon but in the meantime, the pneumatic valve was opened and he was entrapped between the two planks of the door and got pressed. Thus, it is evident that due to lack of instant communication in between the valve operators and the workers and the misadventure on part of late Chandra Shekhar Singh, which led to accidental death of Chandra Shekhar Singh. 5. It has been submitted that allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners are baseless, false and fabricated. In the enquiry, witness no.1 Yogendra Prasad, who was working in the Wagon alongwith the deceased employee, stated that three employees were working under the Wagon and he supported the factum as stated above, in respect of death of the deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh. The accident took place due to failure of co-ordination amongst the workers and extra enthusiasm taken by the deceased workman in carrying out the work. So, it is a case of misadventure with good intention on the part of the victim. 6. In that view of the matter, when group of workers who test the doors is being alerted by their leader not to enter the Wagon door, by shouting before he moves 15 feet away to operate the Wagon doors, the conclusion drawn by the Factory Inspector is not correct and is baseless. The deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh in spite of warning already shouted, entered the Wagon door again to bind the pull rod as a total misadventure. The deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh in spite of warning already shouted, entered the Wagon door again to bind the pull rod as a total misadventure. It has also been submitted that family of the victim has been provided with all benefits of death claim including compassionate appointment to son of the deceased workman and none of the family members of the deceased workman has come forward to lodge the case or to support the prosecution case. 7. In that view of the matter, as submitted, no offence at all is made out under Sec. 55(A)2 of Bihar Factories Act. The allegation are with respect of discharging the official duties of the petitioners S.K. Sood and Permanand Sharma, who are Senior Administrative Grade Officers and Selection Grade Officer respectively and they are posted under Ministry of Railways and hence without obtaining sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. the proceeding cannot be initiated against them and, so, the cognizance taken in the case is bad. Further submission is that Sec. 106 of the Factories Act, 1948 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. 8. It has also been submitted that the alleged accident took place on 1.9.2003 in which Chandra Shekhar Singh died but cognizance order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 22.6.2004 in a mechanical way without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the facts and circumstances, the very continuance of the proceeding in the court below against the high Officials of the Railways like petitioners, for the act, as alleged, will only amount to an abuse of the process of law, wastage of valuable time of the court in view of the fact that there is none to support the prosecution case and the cognizance order is also hit by law of Factories Act. 10. Having considered aforesaid facts and circumstances, the very continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners will only amount to an abuse of process of law and, so, the impugned order stands quahsed and, in turn, the petition is allowed.