Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 962 (MP)

Rajendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-09-11

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “the Act”] has been filed against the order dated 22.1.2015 by which learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Sendhwa, District Badwani has taken the cognizance of offence under section 304A of IPC against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 6.6.2014 at 11.00 a.m. One of labourers of the factory Radhlibai was doing the work of cleanliness and unfortunately she came with contact of Roto Graver Printing Machine and her Saree entangled in the said machine, as a result of which she sustained grievous head injury and succumbed to the injury. The Police Station, Sendhwa Gramin registered a Merg No.65/2014 and after inquiry registered an offence under section 304A of IPC against Chetan Agarwal, Director of Mantram Technofeb Pvt. Ltd.; Sunil Vichare, General Manager (works); Vimal Gupta, Roto Operator; and Karan Yadav, Roto Supervisor of the factory. After investigation, final report has been filed against these persons before the JMFC, Sendhwa on 31.7.2014. On 22.1.2015 learned Magistrate while taking the cognizance for the offence under section 304A of IPC against the four accused persons, suo motu took the cognizance against the petitioner and ordered to issue summon against him. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of incident the petitioner was not present in the factory. There is no material on record for taking the cognizance against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. Only on the basis that the petitioner is a Director of the company, the Court has taken the cognizance which is not justified. There is no allegation that at the relevant time the petitioner being a Director was in-charge of and responsible officer for the conduct of business of the company. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. Kranti Sinha [(2013)4 SCC 506], held that in a complaint when there is no specific role assigned to Managing Director, Company Secretary and other Directors to summoning them is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, quashed the order of summoning. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. Kranti Sinha [(2013)4 SCC 506], held that in a complaint when there is no specific role assigned to Managing Director, Company Secretary and other Directors to summoning them is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, quashed the order of summoning. Learned senior counsel also cited the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in 1998(I) MPLJ 494, and submitted that at the time of passing order of summoning the accused, it must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the law applicable which is lacking in this case. Thus, the order of summoning the petitioner be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State supports the impugned order. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 6. From the impugned order it is clear that the petitioner has been summoned only because he is one of the Director of the company. It is settled law that Directors of the company can be prosecuted for the acts of the company only when there is a specific allegation that at the relevant time the Director was in-charge of and responsible officer for the conduct of business of the company and a specific role attributed to such Director and at the time of passing order of summoning the Magistrate has to satisfy about prima facie case against the Director and the role played by him in the capacity of Director. For the offence under section 304A of IPC, there must be direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused. Remote nexus is not enough. In the present case, admittedly in the final report it is not mentioned that at the relevant time, the applicant being a Director was in-charge of and responsible officer for the conduct of business of the factory. The petitioner was not present in the factory at the time of alleged incident, as there is no reference in the final report about the petitioner. Therefore, it is also not mentioned that in what manner the petitioner was negligent and responsible for the death of labourer. The petitioner was not present in the factory at the time of alleged incident, as there is no reference in the final report about the petitioner. Therefore, it is also not mentioned that in what manner the petitioner was negligent and responsible for the death of labourer. Besides this, the prosecution has to prima facie place the material on record that there is direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused. Remote nexus is not enough to punish the person for the offence under section 304A of IPC. There is no such material on record; whereas learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the petitioner only on the basis that at the relevant time he was one of the Director of the company. 7. In view of the above, I am of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate is not justified. At this stage there is no material before the Magistrate for taking the cognizance against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is not sustainable in law, therefore, it is set-aside. 8. The revision is allowed to the extent indicated above.