PRAMOD NARAYAN BANDEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A. P. P. for the State,

(2.) This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1999 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Thane allowing the Criminal Revision application No. 15 of 1998 filed by the respondent-State. By that judgment, the learned Sessions judge set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, thane allowing the application of the applicants for discharge from the charges framed under section 304a read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The facts in brief are that in the year 1996, Thane municipal Corporation contemplated to construct an over-bridge in kisan Nagar No. 2, Thane. The contract for construction of the over-bridge was given to the petitioners. A high tension electric line of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) was passing over the place where the overbridge was to be constructed. On 27th June, 1996, while working on the construction of the over-bridge, one of the labourers, viz. Suresh Pagare, sustained electric shock from high tension electric line and fell on the ground He sustained severe electrical burn injuries and while undergoing medical treatment succumbed to the injuries. A letter was written by the Thane municipal Corporation to the police alleging that the death of Suresh Pagare was caused by negligence of the petitioners. Police thereafter investigated the complaint and filed a charge-sheet/report under section 173 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr. P. C. ") against the petitioners. After notice to the petitioners and after considering the material produced before him, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioners on 25th July, 1997 under section 304a read with 34 of the I. P. C. The case was thereafter adjourned for evidence to 16th August 1997, 19th September, 1997 and 15th October, 1997. On 15th October 1997, the petitioners filed an application praying that they should be discharged under section 239 of the Criminal procedure Code. The state opposed the application firstly on the ground that once the charge was framed by the Magistrate, there could be no order of discharge without recording of evidence of the prosecution. It also opposed the application on merits and submitted that there was sufficient material on record for framing the charge against the petitioners and the accusations against them were not groundless and, therefore, there was no question of discharge of the petitioners.