Ramlal vs State Of M.P. and 3 Ors.

Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J.—By this petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicant/petitioner Ramlal s/o. Sukhprasad challenging the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 227/12 upholding the rejection order passed by trial Court refusing to discharge the petitioner from offence u/Ss. 286 and 304A of the IPC.

Briefly stated the prosecution story was that the petitioner is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat village Mogava, Khargone and a well was being constructed in the village and during the construction a blast was carried out, however stone flung out very riskily and injured Laxmibai, who was working in the field and her head started bleeding and she was taken to the hospital however she succumbed to her injury. After completion of enquiry and the investigation the accused petitioner was charged for offence u/S. 286 and 304A of the IPC on complaint filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 and being aggrieved by cognizance and issuance of charge-sheet the petitioner filed an application for being discharged from the said offences. His main contentions were that he was handed the charge of Gram Panchayat, Mandleshwar as the BRC Presiding Officer and besides stating that petitioner was on medical leave from 03.12.2011 to 15.12.2011. The petitioner produced a copy of the sanction letter as well as medical documents; however the charge-sheet was filed on 19.12.2011 and being aggrieved the petitioner field an application for discharge before the Judicial Magistrate Mandleshwar, who dismissed the same on 21.08.2012. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the revision before the Revisional Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Mandleshwar and the revision was registered at No. 227/12. However the revisional Court also by the order dated 10.01.2013 dismissed the revision and hence the present petition u/S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the charge sheet, the order framing charge and for acquitting the accused.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the trial Court had first erred in holding that only on the ground of delay the petitioner was not entitled to discharge. Secondly, the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the petitioner in holding that the petitioner was present on the place of occurrence, whereas it is very well established that the petitioner was on medical leave and absence was legally sanctioned. Besides he also enjoyed same form of the immunity since the cause of death of deceased Laxmibai was purely accidental in nature and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same on ground of negligence. Counsel submitted that the revisional Court order be set aside. Counsel also urged that the explosion had taken place under the supervision of explosive expert licence holder and all precautions have been followed. Merely on the basis of vicarious liability the petitioner could not be implicated in criminal jurisprudence. Moreover according to Rule 93 (Rules and Notification-Central Government, 2009) issued by the Central Government, Counsel submitted that person who shall be in-charge explosives at the site is defined thus:

Suitable warning procedure to be maintained-The licensee or an authorized person appointed by the licensee to be in charge of the use of explosives at the site shall lay down a clear warning procedure consisting of warning signs and audible signals and all persons employed in the area shall be made fully conversant with such signs and signals.

Whereas the person who shall be responsible in-charge provisions in Rule 96 are as follows:

Person in charge to be responsible-The licensee or a shot firer employed by him to be in-charge of blasting operations shall take all precautions against fire, accident, loss, pilferage etc. of explosives and will be personally held responsible for any contravention of the relevant provisions of the Act or rules thereof.

Counsel submitted that petitioner was merely a gram panchayat member and he cannot be implicated in the said offences. Counsel submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.

Per contra Counsel for the respondent/State has pointed out that the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court were not satisfied regarding the plea of alibi taken by the accused petitioner. Counsel submitted that if at all he was on leave, it was duly granted by the Chief Executive Officer and it was in his possession at the time when he was first arrested then at the time of filing of challan, despite which the application has been filed only on 11.04.2012. Moreover at the time seeking bail he could very well at the first instance granted the paper to the police and thereafter to the Judicial Magistrate at the time taking cognizance. Counsel submitted that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has correctly concluded that it appeared as if evidence was being created in deference by the accused is purely an after thought. He has lost several chances to produce the letter from the Janpad Panchayat dated 12.04.2012. Counsel prayed that the petition was without merit and the same be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions, I find that present application u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of second revision and the trial Court as well as revisional Court has considered quite in detail the submissions and evidence on record and come to the conclusion despite having several opportunities the petitioner has not availed of the same; since he already had medical papers, as well as consent for grant of leave dated 03.12.2011 to 15.12.2011 available to him; despite which he has not presented the same and now charge has already been framed on 27.12.2011, no fruitful purpose would be served in quashing order registering, the charges and discharging the accused. The revisional Court as aptly observed that what is to be seen at the time of framing charge is whether there is a prima facie case. So also it would be profitable to rely on State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, , whereby the Court held thus: -

It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima-facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.

(Also see Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, ; State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc., ).

The prosecution cannot be stifled at this stage and the proceeding must go on. Thus unwarranted sympathy causes prejudice to the other side and the petition is thus without merit and the same is dismissed as such.