- Case
- IZHAR NIZAMULHAK KHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 06-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitution of India, Factories Act, General Clauses Act, Indian Penal Code.
Facts: The applicant, the Factory Manager of Shree Shakti Weldtech Private Limited, sought to quash an FIR filed against him under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following the death of a contract labourer, Shri Ilyas Abdul Jabbar Sayyed, in a factory accident. The deceased, a welder, fell from the factory roof while attempting to repair damaged asbestos sheets, a task he was neither trained nor engaged for. The occupier of the factory had already been prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for violations related to the same incident.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a Criminal Application in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. The applicant argued that the FIR was improper, that he could not be prosecuted for the same offence as the occupier, and that the prosecution was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India (double jeopardy).
Issue: 1. Does Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India bar the prosecution of the Factory Manager under Section 304A IPC, given that the factory occupier has already been prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for the same incident? 2. Was it permissible for the Investigating Officer to register an FIR against the Factory Manager after noticing his role during the investigation of the incident?
Holding: The Bombay High Court dismissed the Criminal Application, holding that the prosecution of the Factory Manager was not barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and that the Investigating Officer was justified in registering the FIR against him.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the prosecution of the occupier under the Factories Act did not preclude the prosecution of the Factory Manager under Section 304A IPC, as the manager's actions may have independently contributed to the death. The Court emphasized that a "deeming fiction" does not apply in criminal jurisprudence to equate the prosecution of one individual with the prosecution of another. The Court distinguished the principle of issue-estoppel from double jeopardy, citing Manipur Administration, Manipur v. Thokchom Bira Singh and Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla Versus State of Maharashtra. The Court found that the investigation revealed the Factory Manager had unauthorizedly directed the deceased to perform a dangerous task for which he was not trained, leading to the fatal accident. Therefore, the Investigating Officer was justified in registering the FIR against the Factory Manager.
