Factory worker's death due to electrocution: HC quashes case against owner

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case filed under the IPC against a factory owner after an employee died due to electrocution on the factory premises.

According to the court the owner of the factory cannot be booked simultaneously under Section 92 of the Factories Act and Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), John A Eapen and T Kumar, who own the Goodwill Auto Industries in Peenya Industrial Estate, approached the High Court against the case pending against them before the XLV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

A charge sheet has been filed against them for the offence under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC. The allegation against them is that one Harish GM, who was working as a helper in the factory died due to electrocution. The Magistrate court took cognizance of the offence. The incident dates back to 2015.

Approaching the HC, they challenged the case before Justice Hemant Chandangoudar. Their advocate argued that the two have already been convicted for the offence under Section 92 (general penalty for offences) of the Factories Act and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 304-A is impermissible.

The HC in its judgement noted that in an earlier case in 2014, the High Court of Karnataka “has held that simultaneous prosecution under Section 304-A of the IPC and Section 92 of the Factories Act is impermissible, since the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and Section 304-A of IPC 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.”

Consequently, “the proceedings initiated against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A stands quashed,” the HC ordered. It said that the “continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused will be an abuse of process of law.” The HC in its judgement also recorded that the Eapen and Kumar had paid the victim’s family a compensation of Rs 3,00,000.