Shafi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Shafi and Others vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Gulbarga Decided Mar 28, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/935310

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/935310
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga High Court
Judge: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Decided On: Mar 28, 2011
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.15227 of 2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shafi and Others

Advocate For the Petitioners: N. Chandrashekaharayya, Advocate. For the Respondent: Anuradha M. Desai, State Public Prosecutor.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....the court) are the officers of the contractor company. while entrusting the work, the kptcl entered into contract with the contractor company. clause 31.10 of the contract deals with `work and safety regulations’. clause 31.1. of the contract reads thus:- “31.1. the contractor shall ensure proper safety of all the workmen, materials, plant and equipments belonging to him or to kptcl or to others working at the site. the contractor shall also be responsible for provision of all safety notices and safety equipment required both by the relevant legislation and the engineer, as he may deem necessary.” to execute the work, the complainant and another person viz., fareeduddin s/o. istaf ali, climbed tower having height of 30 mtrs. at about 4.30 p.m. on 20.2.2011. when they were at work, the tower bent outside and consequently the complainant and fareeduddin fell to the ground and the same has resulted in injuries to the complainant and fareeduddin. the complaint reveals allegations against the officials of the contractor as well as the petitioners herein. it is not in dispute that the work is entrusted to the contractor. the aforementioned clause of the contract reveals that it is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safety measures. thus, the petitioners who are the engineers of kptcl are not duty bound to provide safety measures to workers. when the work order is issued to the contractor, it is for him to provide safety measures to the workers. the officials of the kptcl are responsible to oversee the quality of the work. the rest of the responsibility is on the contractor. therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not provide safety belts and helmets, cannot be sustained. safety belts and helmets as well as other safety measures will have to be provided by the contractor while entrusting the work to his employees. in view of the same, the proceedings in crime.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondent.

2. Sri Jannatul, S/o. Mastak, lodged a complaint on 20.2.2011 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 336, 337, 338 of IPC, against the petitioners and others. The same is registered in Crime No.25/11 in Yapaldinni Police Station.

3. The petitioners are the Engineers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL). The work of drawing new electrical line from Jurala Project in Andhra Pradesh to Raichur is in progress. The work of drawing the electrical line has been entrusted to the Contractor by name M/s. Vencer Electrical Company, Hyderabad. Accused Nos.1 to 5 (not before the Court) are the Officers of the Contractor Company. While entrusting the work, the KPTCL entered into contract with the Contractor Company. Clause 31.10 of the contract deals with `Work and Safety Regulations’. Clause 31.1. of the contract reads thus:-

“31.1. The Contractor shall ensure proper safety of all the Workmen, Materials, Plant and Equipments belonging to him or to KPTCL or to others working at the Site. The Contractor shall also be responsible for provision of all safety Notices and safety Equipment required both by the relevant Legislation and the Engineer, as he may deem necessary.”

To execute the work, the complainant and another person viz., Fareeduddin S/o. Istaf Ali, climbed tower having height of 30 mtrs. at about 4.30 p.m. on 20.2.2011. When they were at work, the tower bent outside and consequently the complainant and Fareeduddin fell to the ground and the same has resulted in injuries to the complainant and Fareeduddin. The complaint reveals allegations against the officials of the Contractor as well as the petitioners herein.

It is not in dispute that the work is entrusted to the Contractor. The aforementioned Clause of the contract reveals that it is the responsibility of the Contractor to provide safety measures. Thus, the petitioners who are the Engineers of KPTCL are not duty bound to provide safety measures to workers. When the work order is issued to the Contractor, it is for him to provide safety measures to the workers. The officials of the KPTCL are responsible to oversee the quality of the work. The rest of the responsibility is on the Contractor. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not provide safety belts and helmets, cannot be sustained. Safety belts and helmets as well as other safety measures will have to be provided by the Contractor while entrusting the work to his employees. In view of the same, the proceedings in Crime No.25/2011, initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made.:-

The proceedings in Crime No.25/2011, stand quashed in so far as they relate to the petitioners herein are concerned. The proceedings as against other accused shall go on.

Petition is allowed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Karnataka Gulbarga · 2011 Same Parties Shafi and Others vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mohan Shantanagoudar