Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. Inspector, Factories and Boilers - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 304 a and foctories act--section 92 and criminal procedure code--framing of charge--no case made out for framing charge under section 304 a on unrebutted prosecution evidence--held, it will cause harassment to petitioners without serving cause of justice.;even from the unrebutted evidence, produced by the prosecution, no case for framing the charge under section 304-a, i.p.c. has been made-out against the petitioner and there can hardly be any point for framing the charge under section 304-a, i.p.c. against the petitioner and to go-through the formalities of the trial, as it will result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner without serving any of the cause of justice.;petition partly allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 5. i have gone-through the order passed by the learned lower court as well as the record produced by the counsel for the petitioner. even a strong suspicion against the accused, if it leads to the presumption that the accused has committed the offence then the court can frame the charge against the accused.b.r. arora, j.1. this miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated march 6,1990, passed by the munsif and judicial magistrate, first class, hanumangarh junction, by which the learned magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under section 304a of the indian penal code, and section 92 of the factories act.2. mr. s.k. goswami, inspector, factories and boilers, hanumangarh junction, filed a complaint against the potitioner under section 92 of the factories act. it was alleged in the complaint that the complainant visited the factory of the petitioner on jaunary 7/8,1986, in connection with the accident which took-place on december 20,1985, in which a female childlabour was died and as the accused had not used the substantial protection-guard, he has, thus, contravened the provisions of section 21 of the factories act, which is punishable under section 92 of the factories act. it was, also, mentioned that as the substantial protection guard was not installed, therefore, the grinding-stone broke and it came-out from the ironshut enclosure and hit the child labour on her right occipital region, the statements of babu ram, ranjeet singh, rambux, jagdish chandra sharma; site plan, site inspection memo, notice and some other documents were, also, filed. the learned magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and issued process. thereafter, by his order dated march 6, 1990. the learned magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under section 304a, i.p.c. and section 92 of the indian factories act. it is against this order that the present petition under section 482 cr. p.c. has been filed.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ppublic prosecutor and, also, perused the record produced by the petitioner.4. it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which the charges under section 92 of the factories act and/or under section 304a of the indian penal code are made out. he, therefore, prayed that the charges, framed against the petitioner, may be quashed. the learned public prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower court, framing the charges against the petitioner.5. i have gone-through the order passed by the learned lower court as well as the record produced by the counsel for the petitioner.6. at the time of framing the charges, though the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously looked-into and the court is not to see that whether there is sufficient ground for the conviction of the accused or whether the trial is surely to end in conviction. even a strong suspicion against the accused, if it leads to the presumption that the accused has committed the offence then the court can frame the charge against the accused. the court, while framing the charge, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on recored with a view to find-out if the fact emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the court has to evaluate the evidence at that initial stage. the complaint, filed by the complainant, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the inspector during trial and the other documents, produced by the complainant, though prima facie disclose the presence of the ingredients constituting the offence under section 92 of the factories act, but so far as the ingredients of the offence under section 304a, i.p.c. are concerned, they are wanting in this case. as per section 304a i.p.c., (i) there must be the death of the person in question;(ii) that the accused caused such death; and (iii) such act of the accused was rash and negligent, though it did not amount to 'culpable homicide.' in the present case, the second and third ingredients of the offence under section 304a, i.p.c are missing. according to the charge under section 304a, i.p.c., the death must be the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficiently caused without interference of another's negligence. for framing the charge, the prosecution is duty-bound to show from the record of the case and the documents collected during the course of investigation that the facts emerging therefrom constitue the offence, for which the accused is charged. from the careful reading of the existing materials on record. i am of the opinion that even from the unrebutted evidence, produced by the prosecution, no case for framing the charge under section 304a, i.p.c. has been made-out against the petitioner and there can hardly be any point for framing the charge under section 304a, i.p.c. against the petitioner and to go-through the formalities of the trial, as it will result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner without serving any of the cause of justice.7. consequently, i partly allow this miscellaneous petition, set-aside the order dated march 6, 1990, passed by the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, first class, hanumangarh junction, so far as framing the charge under section 304a, i.p.c. is concerned and quash the charge under section 304a, i.p.c.