The Karnataka High Court has clarified that parallel or simultaneous prosecution under Section 304A of the IPC along with prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act is not permissible in respect of the very same incident.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 304A of the IPC against the owner cum occupier and the manager (petitioners) of a Rice Mill. The Court held that parallel prosecution under both Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act) and Section 304A of the IPC for the same incident was not permissible following the electrocution death of an employee.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz observed, “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision noted supra, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in respect of the very same incident, in view of the punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”
Also read – Technology Is Not A Magic Pill : Dr. Amit Singh
Advocate Shivanand Patil appeared for the petitioners, while Government Pleader Jamadar Shahabuddin represented the respondents.
The petitioners argued that parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same incident, under both the IPC and the Act, amounted to “double jeopardy” and were legally impermissible.
The incident leading to the case involved an employee who died due to electric shock while de-watering a sump in the paddy cleaning section of the factory using an old electric motor. The motor was allegedly used without necessary safety precautions, as described in the complaint filed by another co-worker. The police completed an investigation and charged the petitioners with negligence in failing to provide safety measures.
The High Court referred to the decision in Ananthakumar v. State of Karnataka (2019), which set a precedent regarding simultaneous prosecutions under IPC and Factories Act for the same incident. The Court held that prosecuting the petitioners under both the Acts was not legally permissible, as the Factories Act provisions specifically apply to such workplace safety issues.
“Referring to Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and relevant decisions on the point, this Court took note of the fact that Section 92 of the Factories Act provides for punishment of imprisonment for a period upto two years for contravention of any provisions of this Act and if such contravention has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, minimum fine of Rs.25,000/- in addition to imprisonment. Likewise Section 304-A prescribes that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “The entire proceedings pending on the file of Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Raichur, are hereby quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: G.V. Prasad & Anr. v. The State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:7760)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shivanand Patil and Varun Patil
Respondents: Government Pleader Jamadar Shahabuddin
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
