Owner Must Ensure Safety Precautions And Warning Signs At Construction Site, Can Be Held Liable For Negligence In Their Absence: MP High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
25 July 2024 1:24 PM GMT
A single judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered an important ruling regarding the criminal liability of a contractor for failing to place warning signs at a construction site, which led to a fatal accident.
The court held that as the owner of the company, had the duty to ensure all safety precautions, including warning signs. The negligence in safety measures directly contributing to a fatal accident can constitute a criminal offense under Section 304-A IPC
The incident occurred during the widening of a culvert, a project undertaken by M/s. P.D. Agrawal Infrastructure Ltd., which was sublet from TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
On the 29th of December, 2006, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paten, District Jabalpur, took cognizance of the case against P.D. Agrawal under Sections 304/34 of the IPC. The FIR, registered under Crime No. 66/2005 at Police Station Katangi, District Jabalpur, accused Agrawal of negligence for not putting warning signs, leading to Charan Singh's accident and subsequent death.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant, as the Managing Director of M/s. P.D. Agrawal Infrastructure Ltd., cannot be vicariously held liable for the company's actions in the absence of specific provisions under the IPC. The defense cited several Supreme Court judgments such as Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2008) 5 SCC 668: Establishing that individual liability for corporate actions requires specific statutory provisions.
Further in Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Emphasizing that a company's senior officials cannot be held liable without evidence of their direct involvement. Even in Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane (2015): Reinforcing the principle of distinct corporate liability.
The State's counsel opposed the application, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sushil Ansal Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation (2014), which held that company owners could be held accountable for their failure to ensure safety measures. The State argued that as the owner of the contractor company, Agrawal had the duty to ensure all safety precautions, including warning signs, were in place.
Justice Ahluwalia considered whether Mr. Agrawal could be held criminally liable for the lack of warning signs at the construction site. The court examined the Power of Attorney, which identified Agrawal as a partner, not merely the Managing Director, of M/s. P.D. Agrawal Infrastructure Ltd. This distinction implied a higher degree of responsibility for the company's operations.
The court noted that Mr. Agrawal was granted anticipatory bail in 2006 but failed to appear before the investigating officer or trial court, leading to a charge sheet being filed in his absence and a perpetual warrant of arrest issued in 2010. Agrawal surrendered only in 2018, further complicating his defense.
Therefore, In the light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Sushil Ansal, the court emphasized that negligence in safety measures directly contributing to a fatal accident can constitute a criminal offense under Section 304-A IPC. The court found that the lack of warning signs was a significant breach of duty, and Agrawal, as a partner and responsible party, failed to ensure these precautions, directly leading to Charan Singh's death.
The court stated that “So far as non impleadment of company as accused is concerned, there is no bar in impleading the company as an offender at later stage. The Court in exercise of power under Section 190, 193 and 319 of Cr.P.C. can always summon an additional person as an accused.”
Justice Ahluwalia concluded that P.D. Agrawal could be held criminally liable for the negligent act of not placing warning signs, which directly caused the fatal accident. The court refused to interfere with the ongoing proceedings, reinforcing the principle that corporate officials with significant control and responsibility can be held accountable for failures in ensuring safety measures.
Case title: P.D. Agrawal Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: M.Cr.C. No.445/2007
