Death By Negligence | Prosecution U/S 304A IPC Not Permissible If Offence U/S 92 Of Factories Act Already Initiated: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that initiating prosecution under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, against the owners/manager of a factory is impermissible when already prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, has been initiated.A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petitioner filed by...
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that initiating prosecution under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, against the owners/manager of a factory is impermissible when already prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, has been initiated.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petitioner filed by G. V Prasad and another and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 304-A of IPC.
The court said, “This Court is of the considered view that prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in respect of the very same incident, in view of the punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”
Deceased employee Sujeet Paswan had died due to electrocution while pumping water using an electric motor. As per the complaint filed by co-worker Sanjeet Kumar it was alleged that the electric motor was old and the manager of the Rice Mill without taking any precaution and providing safety measures, instructed the deceased to lift water from the tank by using the said electric motor. The police after investigation filed chargesheet in the case.
The petitioners contended that parallel proceedings, leading to parallel Act in respect of the very same incident, cannot go on and the culmination of the same, will result in double jeopardy.
The bench noted that “A separate complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the State represented by the Assistant Director of Factories, Raichur Division, Raichur, against both the petitioners, namely occupier and manager of the factory, alleging violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969, wherein the said violations are made punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”
Court relied on the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Ananthakumar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2019 KAR 565, wherein it was held that offences made punishable under Section 92 of the Act and Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code are of the same kind and are punishable with same quantum of punishment and hence, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act becomes applicable requiring the offender to be prosecuted only under one enactment. The scheme of the Factories Act does not permit parallel prosecutions under two different Acts against a person accused of committing offences under the Factories Act.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution.
Appearance: Advocate Shivanand Patil and Varun Patil for Petitioners.
HCGP Jamadar Shahabuddin for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
Case Title: G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200662 OF 2024