Shop owners exonerated in Kanakapura blast case; no vicarious liability in criminal law, says HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Two shop owners from whose shop gelatine sticks were illegally purchased, leading to the blast in Kanakapura that killed one person, have been exonerated in the case.

The High Court quashed the case against Prakash Rao M and his son P Sunil Kumar, after finding that they were not involved in the sale and it was one of their employees who had sold the gelatine sticks without their knowledge. Rao and Kumar approached the HC with a criminal petition that was heard by Justice K Natarajan.

The two were facing a case pending in the II Additional District and Sessions Judge Court at Kanakapuara. The case was registered by the Satanur Police Station under sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 9(b) of Explosive Act besides sections 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

A car parked in the police station limits was involved in a blast, leading to the death of one person on August 16, 2021. The deceased was one Mahesh who was carrying gelatine in his car. After investigation, police filed a charge-sheet in which Rao and Kumar were also named as accused as they were the shop owners where the gelatine was purchased from.

The two contended before the HC that they were not present in the shop when the alleged sale took place. A worker in the shop, Harish Kumar, who is also one of the accused, had sold it to the deceased Mahesh. No bill was raised by the other accused.

They claimed they had no knowledge of the sale and therefore were not responsible for the crime. The government advocate, however, contended that the two accused were licence holders and “they have no authority to sell to any other persons except contractors who have obtained the contract for blasting stone in quarries.”

The HC in its judgment noted, “Accused No 3 Harish Kumar categorically stated in the voluntary statement that in the absence of the owners, he used to sell the explosives without the knowledge of the owners and money received by him was spent on himself.

The accused No 3 who is an employee has categorically stated that without the knowledge of the owners, he used to sell the same through accused No 2 and spend the money on themselves without accounting to the petitioners/ owners. Such being the case, the question of implicating this petitioner for having violated the licence cannot be accepted.”

Quashing the case against the two shop owners, the HC said, “Any offence committed by a servant cannot be said to be vicarious liability by the owners/ employer in a criminal law. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that conducting criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.”