IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6385 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.N. KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS, S/O NINGAPPA, TEAM LEADER M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , NO.8, 3RD CROSS, NELAGADANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560073 2. SRI SUFIYAN CHINCHALI AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ABBAS CHUNCHALI, TECHNICAL STAFF, M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.728, 61ST CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE 3. SRI BOREGOWDA AGED 43 YEARS, S/O NINGAIAH, SUPERVISOR, M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.12, 4TH MAIN, KURUBARAHALLI, JC NAGARA, BANGALORE.
4. SRI ANSAR PASHA AGED 33 YEARS S/O M HANJA SENIOR SUPERVISOR M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.19/34, 5TH CROSS, LAXMAN NAGARA, HEGGANAHALLI, BANGALORE.
5. SRI GURUPRASAD AGED 40 YEARS, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY ASSISTANT MANAGER, M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.110, 4TH MAIN, DEFENCE LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE 560097 6. SRI VENKATESH AGED 46 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMANA BHATTA, MAINTENANCE, M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.977, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, I BLOCK, RV COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE 7. SRI SATISH R AGED 34 YEARS, S/O RAJEGOWDA, ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR, M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, R/A NO.16, 1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA PIPELINE ROAD, T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: B.RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1.STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BIDADI POLICE STAION, BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2.SRI BETTASWAMY P AGED 32 YEARS, S/O PAPANNA, NO.731/490, A SAROS BUILDING, HOUSE NO.4, FIRST FLOOR, MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE FOR S.SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 287 AND 338 OF IPC AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.243/2015. b) QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.243/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners were employees of M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited, Bengaluru. On 28.11.2013 at around 11.00 a.m., at the time of operation of DEMAG EOT crane, the guide rail clamp of the pendent fell on the shoulder of Sri. Hanumantharaju, Press shop team leader. The said incident was reported to the utilities department. Immediately the operation of the crane was stopped and placed at the western direction of the press shop. As per the instructions of the supervisor Sri Boregowda, the group of workers namely Sri Betta Swamy, Sri. Prakash and Sri Prem Kumar, Trainee Operators were working on the power press of 350 tons and producing pressed components. As there was problem in the Demag EOT Crane pendant guide ways channel, the maintenance and vendor members were repairing the crane. While the work was being done on top of the crane, the part trolley was positioned near the press machine to store the semi-finished pressed components. One of the worker working on the press, pushed the part trolley, as a result, the front portion of the trolley hit against the pendant of the crane, which had lowered below the normal height, as a result of which, the rollers of the pendant cable came out of the guide rails and pulled the guide rails. In the process, the portion of the guide rails measuring around 5 mtrs long with the pendant cable fell on the left foot of Sri. Betta swamy from a height of 6 mtrs and he sustained bleeding injury.
2. The accident was reported to the Factory Inspector who conducted the spot inspection and recorded the above findings. Since the factory Inspector was of the opinion that the alleged incident had taken place on account of failure of Manager of the factory to provide the safety measures, a private complaint was filed against the Factory Manager seeking his prosecution under section 92 of the Factories Act. The Factory Manager pleaded guilty of the charge and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced by the Court. That being the case, the second respondent lodged a complaint with regard to the very same occurrence on 23.11.2013 alleging that the alleged incident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioners herein. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners under sections 287 and 338 of IPC.
3. A reading of column 17 of the charge sheet and the inspection report prepared by the Factory Inspector at the earliest incident would go to show that the alleged incident had taken place during repair of the crane. There is nothing in the charge sheet to indicate that the petitioners were involved in repair of the crane. On the other hand, the material on record indicates that on second respondent sustaining injury, all the petitioners herein rushed to the spot, shifted the second respondent to the first aid room. These circumstances do not make out the ingredients of rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners. On the other hand, the allegations made in the charge sheet clearly go to show that the alleged mishap has occurred on account of Factory Manager and Occupier failing to provide safety measures during repair of the crane for which act of negligence, they pleaded guilty before the Court. Under the said circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for prosecution of the petitioners under section 287 and 338 IPC.
4. Charge under section 338 read with 34 of I.P.C. could be maintained against the petitioners if grievous hurt was caused by accused by doing any act so rashly or negligently endangering human life either on account of failure to maintain the crane or ensuring safety of the workman during repair of the crane. But the facts discussed above clearly go to show that guide rails of the crane fell down while the crane was being under repair. Since none of the petitioners were involved in repair of the crane, no rashness or negligence could be imputed to any of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the ingredient of section 338 of IPC do not get attracted to the facts of the case.
5. Section 287 of IPC deals with Negligent conduct with respect to machinery:-
Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or, to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
6. No doubt, material produced on record indicate that while crane was being repaired, one of the employee pushed the said crane which resulted in the accident, but it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein pushed the crane as depicted in the notice of inspection. In that view of the matter, even the ingredient of section 287 of IPC, in my view, are not attracted to the facts of the case. As a result, the prosecution of the petitioners being illegal and amounting to abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.243/2015 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/Bss