Payment Of Compensation Can't Override Allegation Of Dereliction Of Duty: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against BESCOM Engineer For Transformer Blast
|The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a BESCOM Junior Engineer to quash a criminal case registered against him alleging that a transformer blast led to the death of a man and his daughter.
The petitioner approached the High Court with a criminal petition filed under section 482 of the CrPC to quash the entire charge sheet and proceedings initiated against him.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “Today the incident may have happened to the deceased and it can happen to others if the officers are left off the hook on the ground that compensation is paid to the family of the deceased.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Madesh V.M. while the respondents was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadeesh.
The incident is of the year 2022 when one Shivaraj had gone to book a venue for the purpose of his daughter’s engagement. When Shivaraj and his daughter were returning home, a transformer beside the road-side burst. Due to the burst, the oil spilled over from the transformer caught fire and directly fell on Shivaraj and his daughte. They sustained grave burn injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to a hospital where they succumbed to injuries.
Subsequently, a crime case came to be registered against the officials of BESCOM for offences punishable under Sections 285, 338 and Section 304A of the IPC.Taking of cognizance and continuance of trial had driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. The petitioner in this case is an employee of BESCOM working in the cadre of Junior Engineer.
The petitioner’s Counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner had got nothing to do with the bursting of the transformer, as it had accidentally happened and for such accident negligence couldn’t be attributed against the petitioner. As per the petitioner, it was the role of other accused who are contractor and others who had to upkeep the transformer and their non-maintenance of the transformer could have led to the mishap.
The Bench was of the view that the petitioner was responsible for the upkeep of the transformer despite it being contracted out or not. “It is his responsibility for such patrolling and maintenance of the transformer. The act of the petitioner may not be rash, but it is undoubtedly negligent. The said finding is not rendered in the air”, it added.
Reference was made to the report of Electrical Inspectorate wherein it has been mentioned that BESCOM officers who are responsible should have checked oil leakage in the explosion vent and repaired it intermittently and if that had been done the mishap could have been easily avoided. “Therefore, there has been dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of BESCOM”, the Bench held.
Taking into consideration the several complaints which were made to rectify the defect in the transformer, the Bench said, “The Police, on investigation, have appended those complaints to the charge sheet. These are undisputed facts. Prima facie negligence is writ large qua the petitioner, or other accused in the case at hand. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the on-going trial against the petitioner.”
The petitioner submitted that in the light of compensation of Rs 20,00,000 being paid to the wife, the petitioner should be absolved of the crime. On this argument, the Bench said, “The said submission is preposterous to say the least. Payment of any amount of compensation by BESCOM, can by no stretch of imagination absolve the officers of the allegation of dereliction of duty.”
Thus, rejecting the Criminal Petition, the Bench asserted, “The petitioner who is charged with dereliction of duty along with AEE and AE should necessarily come out clean in the trial. Payment of compensation can never override or mask the allegation of dereliction of duty.”
Cause Title: Mr. Mahanthesh S. Nagur vs State [Case No. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Madesh V.M.
Respondent: Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadeesh