Dismissed

Amrit Lal Kapoor And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2015CRMP/109/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Petition filed by factory occupiers and manager seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet under Sections 304A and 201 IPC for death of a worker. Court held charge sheet filed within three years of FIR. Petition dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed at the stage of admission without notice.

Amrit Lal Kapoor And Anr. Vs State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

^^'

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CR.M.P.NO.tG3 OF 2015

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

Amrit Lal Kapoor, son of Shri S. D. Kapoor, aged about 76 years, resident of CS2, Southland Street, Sint Road - Mumbai

¶7

(Maharashtra)

¶8

Alakhram Verma, son of Shri Keshavram Verma, aged about 59 years, R/o- Tekari, Dist.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Both are residents of at Ambuja Colony, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh through- Dist. Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Baz.ar (C.G)

¶13

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 48'2 QF-THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED^26.08.20'raTpASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.H-29/2014 BYSESSION JUDGE BALODA BAZAR AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE-CRIIVIINAL CASE NO.J-112/2014'PENDING BEFORE JUOTCIAL IVIAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, BALODA-BAZAR, DIST. BALODA BAZAR (CHHATTISGARH) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIOENRS ^RE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCE P.UNISHABL&U/S 304A,201 IPCREAD WITH SECTION 32 (CFAND 73 (iT OF FACTORIES ACT.

¶14

1"\ •".'

¶15

HIGH COURJ QF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶16

SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

¶17

CR. M, P.NO. 109 OF 2015

¶18

PETITIONERS

¶19

Amrit Lal Kapoor and another

¶20

Versus

¶21

RESPONDENT

¶22

State of Chhattisgarh

¶23

(CRIMINAL MISC. EETm@NeUNDERSECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF , * C; tGfaSllNMgt'Rttfttlli'&RE. 1973)

¶24

AppeaBanfee of the counsel:

¶25

S"MV e

¶26

NlpAshish Shrivastavaai-iclfciIr.AmitVerma, counsel fofitfte Retitioners.

¶27

Nlr. D.K. Gwalre, G6vt| ^\El'recat|itor the State/respondeht on advance copy. !' csWWWXS

¶28

UAM,.?.0!RDER tGeljwered^n o3/03/2015)

¶29

Invoking jurisdictitrElofill'ns^go'urt under Section 48?-oi the Code of ' Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') petitioners herein calls in

¶30

, question the impugned order dated 26/08/2014, by which, learned Session Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) has affirmed the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar rejecting the application filed under Sections 468 & 469 of the Cr.P.C. filed by petitioners.

¶31

The Police Station, Balodabazar filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other co-accused on 30/05/2012 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-A & 201 of the I.P.C. and Sections 32(C) & 73(1) of the Factories Act for the death of Preetam Chouhanon 27/12/2008...

¶32

'l-«fl£^^ ;» '^^^/

¶33

The petitioners herein filed an application under Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C. stating inter alia that the Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety, Raipur has informed to the Station House Officer, Balodabazar on 28/03/2009 that for rash and negligent act in the factory premises, the occupier- Amrit Lal Kapoor and Manager- Alakhram Verma are responsible, therefore, charge sheet ought to have been filed within three years from the said date i.e. 28/03/2009, whereas, charge sheet has been filed on 30/05/2012.

¶34

TheJt.K)f|t|l6lIagisti-ate Firsti!%l|sS,|b|,|ts order dated 28/04/2014 rejeeteltptMe application holding that upon infOmiati'oji.received about oeeapier and Manager gf|hie;Raet©r^,First Information Repijls^ame to be registered on 17/07/2C®Iati|t;'®j®lgarariPanchanama of the petitioners were prepared on 09/05/20<lg2^jar'l|l"the charge sheet has been filed on 30/05/2012. It has furthgFljgeWiaBserved that the petitioner No. 1- Amrit Lal Kapoor surrendered^ bn S[1?09/2012 and petitioner No. 2- Alakhram .Verma surrendered on^%hWWrts ancl one accused person is still absconding, therefore, the charge sheet filed is within the period of limitation prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and rejected the application.

¶35

Against the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, the revision was preferred by the present petitioners before the Session Judge, Balodabazar. The learned Session Judge by its impugned order dated 26/08/2014 held that the information about the persons responsible for rash and negligent act in the factory premises came to be informed to the Station House Officer, Balodabazar on 28/03/2009 and the First Information Report was lodged on 17/07/2009 after mergenquiry and the

¶36

li ^

¶37

¶38

charge sheet has been filed on 30/05/2012 , therefore, in accordance with provision contained in Sections 469(1) (b) and 470(4) of the Cr.P.C., learned Session Judge declined to interfere in the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

¶39

Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. He would submit that charge sheet has been filed after expiry of three years as memo dated 28/03/2009, Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety Raipur has clearly informed the name ofthe petitioners-,4[s|S®18|WsilSdl*Manfl!^s|s;',|g|° Factory premises, where PreStsfffis!(?houhan died on 27/12/2008, thereforepWarge sheet framed sgiyfiled on 30/05/2QtEjs. beyoiidjthe period of limitati@ri prescribed in Section 468 ofthe Cr.P3'Gjj:Sft:S;1xS-

¶40

At this stage, it wou!d^BB|proper to notice Sections 468(2)(c) and 469(1 )(b) ofthe Cr.P.G.^asSattowsA

¶41

period"468. Bar^{oflimitati!0in.-(t5} tottakiaipcognizance^* * * after lapse of the

¶42

(2)The period of limitation shall be-

¶43

(a) * * *

¶44

(b) * * *

¶45

(c)^three years,^{iftheoffenceis} punishable^with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶46

Commencement of the period of limitation.(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,-

¶47

(a) * * *

¶48

(b)^{Wherethecommissionoftheoffencewasnot} known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledae of such person or to anv police officer. whichever is earlier: or.

¶49

¶50

-~.J

¶51

A bare perusal of the record would show that on 28/03/2009, Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety, Raipur had informed the name of the occupier and the Manager of the Ambuja Cement Limited as the persons responsible for rash and negligent act in the factory premises under the provisions of the Factories Act to Station House Officer on 28/03/2009 and thereafter, the First Information Report was lodged on 17/07/2009 against the petitioners and one Jeenu Philip and the charge sheet came to be fileaon30/C)5/2012..^ ^ .-,

¶52

Fact remains that after receipt of informatiQreas to Occupier and Mariager of the said f^ctpry^ the matter was enquirSdii:i||,Jhe Station House Officer and Firstilnfonnatioiy Report was lodged cih 17/07/2009 and within three years iTGlT^fheg^iid lodgment of the First Information Report, charge sheet wasfitedonl 30/05/2012 and Farari Panchanama was prepared on 09/Q5/2012. Thus, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has rightly rejected the ap^Uqationfiled by the petitioners under Sections 468 & 469 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Session Judge has not committed any illegality in affirming the same dismissing the revision.

¶53

As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed at the stage of

¶54

admission without notice to the other side.

¶55

Sd/Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge

¶56

Tiwari

Amrit Lal Kapoor And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal Kapoor And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Ambika Devi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rupanand Pradhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha Vs Shri G.r. Churendra and Anr.

M/S Jyoti Structures Ltd. Vs Addl.Commissioner Com.Tax,Raipur

Smt. Kiran Kanoje Vs Shri K. Murugan and Ors.

Harikishan And Anr. Vs Jageshwar Sahu And Ors.