Owner flouting laws for gains can be charged for negligence, says HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that any factory owner flouting laws for pecuniary gains and not taking precautionary safeguards would be liable to be proceeded against for causing death by negligence and not culpable homicide.

The High Court also set aside the trial Court order of framing charge against an accused factory owner under Section 304 of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, more than a year after 16 persons died in a Ludhiana plastic factory fire. The Bench ruled that the charge was required to be framed under Section 304A of the IPC for causing death by negligence. Section 304 entails punishment of imprisonment up to life, while a maximum of two years is prescribed under Section 304A.

“The acts attributed to the accused prima facie show reckless and highhanded conduct aimed at profit-making. Even if the accused flouted all laws for pecuniary gains and did not take precautionary measures, he would certainly be liable in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. But, it seems difficult to stretch the accusation further, and claim that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC,” the Bench asserted.

Factory owner Inderjit Singh had challenged the order dated October 12, 2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby charge was ordered to be framed under Section 304 of the IPC and Section 92 of the Factories Act. An FIR was registered on November 20, 2017, under Sections 304, 285, 337, 338, 427 of the IPC.

An FIR was registered after fire incident broke out on November 20, 2017, on the premises. As per the FIR, the incident took place due to non-installation of fire-fighting equipment in the factory owned by the petitioner.

Justice Shekher Dhawan asserted the material relied upon by the prosecution for framing charges under Section 304 must at least prima facie indicate that the accused had done an act which caused death with knowledge that he was by such act likely to cause death. The entire material relied upon by the prosecution before the trial Judge does not support such a charge because the petitioner has come with the plea that he had obtained the required licence for the storage of raw material and upper limit was not prescribed.

There was absolutely no evidence before the trial Judge to record a finding that there was some material or evidence to make out prima facie case that the accused was having an intention to cause death of certain persons.

“Merely by recognising such ‘sentiments’, (which may have aroused because of death of so many persons in this case), for twisting the law, and attempting to treat the deaths as homicide of a higher degree, would be highly improper. The attempt to bring the acts attributed to the applicants within the penal provisions of section 304 of the IPC on the basis that he had knowledge, is too artificial and prima facie unacceptable,” Justice Dhawan ruled.