AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohinder Pal, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered as C.R. No. II-36 of 2009 dated 22.8.2009 registered with Desar Police Station, district Vadodara, for the offences punishable under sections 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and section 4(b) of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. As per the facts of this case, the petitioner is owner of Shreyas Quarry Works, which is a partnership firm. A lease agreement dated 24.01.2002 was executed between the petitioner firm and the District Collector, Vadodara, to carry out mining work at village Vejpur, taluka Savli in Survey No. 382 paiki. For the purpose of carrying out the blasting work, the petitioner has further given job work to one Trishul Trading Company for which a separate agreement was executed on 13.7.2009. On the relevant date, i.e. 27.8.2009, said Trishul Trading Company was found in possession of explosives and as they failed to produce any licence to keep these explosives, the present case has been registered. Aggrieved from filing of FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
Notice of this petition has been issued to the State and learned APP has appeared on its behalf and has contested this petition.
Heard. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company is engaged in the work of mining activities and was having contract to carry out mining work at the place in question. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has further given job work to one Trishul Trading Company in whose possession explosives have been found. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn our attention to page 35 of the petition, which is the licence issued in favour of Trishul Trading Company to possess the explosives. Perusal of the licence shows that it was valid upto 31.3.2009 and an application for renewal of the licence has been made to the respondent authorities, a copy of which is on record. This application has been received by the respondents for renewal of the licence beyond the period from 31.3.2009. Respondent authorities called for certain papers as required under the Explosive Rules, 2008. These documents were to be supplied by M/s. Trishul Trading Company on or before 30.9.2009. However, before this date, the raid in question has been conducted on 22.8.2009 and the present petitioner being the principal employer has been implicated in the case.
The main allegation of the respondent authorities against the petitioner is that they have engaged M/s. Trishul Trading Company for the job who was not possessing valid licence to keep the explosives in their possession. The stand of the respondents is baseless as the letter at Annexure-D clearly shows that Trishul Trading Company was possessing licence which was valid uptil 31.3.2009 and their application for renewal of the licence beyond the period from 31.3.2009 was pending before the respondent authorities, wherein the company has been asked to furnish certain documents by 30.9.2009. Before this date, the case has been registered. It is unfortunate that the respondent authorities, though knowing that an application for renewal was pending for which period uptil 30.9.2009 was granted to this company, raid has been conducted. Otherwise also, the petitioners are the principal employers. How principal employer can be held liable for the acts of agent when valid agreement for job work is there. For the above-mentioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are baseless, motivated and are required to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute.