Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 838 (JHR)

Parkash Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-13

ANANDA SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 648 of 2014, whereby the learned A.J.C.-X, Ranchi has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and directed him to remain physically present for framing of charge. 2. The prosecution case arises out of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 lodged by one Pappy Saini stating therein that on 6.2.2013 in the morning, catering work was being carried out at the ground floor of the building of one Prakash Agarwal and several persons were engaged in preparation of food. It has been mentioned that at that place, on the instruction of Prakash Agrawal, gas cylinders were being refilled. During the course of refiling gas cylinder, leakage occurred and some cylinder caught fire due to which Gas Cylinder exploded resulting in injury of several persons including persons who were engaged in preparation of food. They were taken to the Hospital, but later on one worker, namely, Vijay Ram succumbed to his injury. It has been mentioned that knowing fully well that refilling can cause incident, upon the direction and within the knowledge of Prakash Agrawal this refilling was being done. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Pappy Saini, the instant F.I.R. was registered under sections 285, 337, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal Code and under Order 3(1-B) of L.P.G. Regulation, Supply and Distribution Order, 2000. 3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 285, 337, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal Code and under Order 3(1-B) of L.P.G. Regulation, Supply and Distribution Order, 2000. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.03.2015 for discharge, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.06.2015 giving rise to this revision application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material on record to proceed against this petitioner. He further submits that as there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner should have been discharged and the impugned order is absolutely bad. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material on record to proceed against this petitioner. He further submits that as there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner should have been discharged and the impugned order is absolutely bad. 5. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and has submitted that the Court below has found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and that being so, this revision application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the entire record. 7. The allegation in nut-shell against the petitioner is that Gas Cylinder was being refilled under his instruction and with his knowledge. 8. After going through the records of the case, I find that during the course of investigation the police has found that the petitioner was not present when the incident had occurred. This finding clearly suggests that when Gas Cylinder was being refilled and the incident was taken place this petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The witnesses in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., even the injured witness have stated that catering work was going on and during the course of preparation of food one Umesh, who is the driver of Prakash Agrawal came with domestic cylinder and started refilling it from the commercial cylinder. There is no statement of this driver, Umesh in the entire case diary. This fact has also been noted by the trial Court in its impugned order. From the aforementioned facts, thus, it is quite clear that:- (i) The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence; (ii) The driver Umesh was engaged in the refilling of domestic cylinder from commercial cylinder. (iii) The statement of driver has not been recorded by the police to substantiate the prosecution case whether he was engaged in the said act at the instance of this petitioner or not. (iv) There is nothing in the case diary to suggests that this act was being done at the instance of this petitioner or he had knowledge about the same. 9. From perusal of section 285, 337, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that there has to be a direct attribution of the overt act against the person, who commits the said crime. 9. From perusal of section 285, 337, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that there has to be a direct attribution of the overt act against the person, who commits the said crime. The word 'whoever' in the said section, clearly suggests that no vicariously liability can be attributed against any person for commission of offence under sections 285, 337, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation of criminal conspiracy against this petitioner. There is also no allegation against the petitioner which can attract section 34 of the Indian Penal Code also. 10. May it be recorded that the provision of the I.P.C., except in some cases specifically provided thereof, never stipulates about the prosecution of a person on the principles of vicarious liability and, hence, one cannot be prosecuted in absence of any specific allegation constituting offence under Indian Penal Code. 11. So far the allegation of violation of Order 3(1-B) of L.P.G. Regulation, Supply and Distribution Order, 2000 is concerned, the said allegation is also not against the petitioner. 12. From the records it transpires that there has been no allegation against the petitioner that on account of his rash or negligent act the accident occurred causing death of several persons. 13. I find no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner. Since there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused-petitioner, the impugned order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 648 of 2014 is set aside and the petitioner stands discharged. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this application stands allowed.