AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.K. Sinha, J.—Pronounced on 18.01.2011 D.K. Sinha,J. The instant petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Petitioners herein for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them in connection with Gulmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 184 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. No. 1861A/1990 including the order dated 04.09.1991 by which the cognizance of the offence under Sections 337/287/304A and 201 I.P.C. was taken against the Petitioners by the C.J.M., Jamshedpur now pending before the Court of Shri Taufique Ahmad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
The prosecution story in short was that on 26.11.1990 a column was being erected inside the factory premises of M/s Indian Tube Company Limited ( a Unit of M/s Tata Steel Company Limited) at about 2.30 p.m. and in course of erection of the column while the overhead crane was carrying iron material, the part of the crane broke into and the iron materials which were being carried out by the crane fell down causing hurt to the informant Maheshwar Singh and the co-worker S.K. Das, as a result of which S.K. Das succumbed his injuries on the spot. It is further stated that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 337/287/304A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as against the Petitioners and other accused persons.
Advancing his argument, learned Counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha submitted that even if assuming the entire case to be true in its entirety, no offence alleged under the penal provisions of I.P.C. could be attracted against any of the Petitioners on the face of special legislation of Factories Act. The Petitioner No. 1 at the relevant point of time was Safety Officer and now aged about 74 years leading a retired life. Petitioner No. 2 was also Chief Safety Officer at the relevant time and now his age was 75 years. Petitioner No. 3 was Assistant Manager, Tubes Division whereas the Petitioner No. 4 was the Divisional Manager, Tubes Division and all the Petitioners are facing trial for the last 20 years in a summons trial case.
Advancing his argument, learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners had earlier moved a petition u/s 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 13.01.2005 and consequently a Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2005, which was preferred by the Petitioners against the said order was affirmed on 6.04.2005, however, with the observation calling upon the Trial Court to conclude the trial within four months but it could not be concluded within time framed. The Petitioners were unnecessarily being harassed for the protracted and prolonged trial in a summons trial case being continued for more than 20 years which has occasioned failure of justice and contrary to the guarantee given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore, the entire criminal prosecution of the Petitioners may be set aside/quashed by this Court.
In Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, , it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court,
Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time-frame for conclusion of trial.
It would be relevant to mention that during pendency of this Criminal Misc. Petition this Court by the order dated 16.05.2008 had stayed the further proceeding of Golmuri ( Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 184 of 1990 till 10.06.2008 and that such stay was extended till the submission of the report of the Judicial Magistrate. The report was submitted after few days and therefore the interim stay that was granted by the order dated 10.06.2008 automatically stood vacated but the Trial Court on the assumption of "stay" did not further proceed to which explanation was called for but the Court failed to satisfy as to why the trial could not be concluded.
A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Party failed to show any ground more so, only on account of the conduct and delaying tactics of the Petitioners the trial of a summons trial case could not be concluded, I do not find the accused Petitioners of this case are any how responsible for the protracted trial rather they have been denied the right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thereby they have been mentally, physically and monetarily persecuted.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons stated above, the prayer is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the Petitioners in Gulmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 184 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. No. 1861A/1990 is quashed.