K.S.GAREWAL,J - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh to challenge the charges framed against them by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Earlier the trial Court had on September 25, 1998 discharged the accused but that order was challenged through a revision petition and was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated May 23, 2000.
(2.) THE petitioners had, through criminal revision 16 of 2001 challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on May 23, 2000 and through criminal revision 1296 of 2000 challenged the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby charges have been framed against them. Both petitions shall be disposed of together. Notice to the complainant was also issued and he was impleaded as respondent and was heard. This case relates to the death of Subh Ram, son of the complainant Raghbir Singh, on November 13, 1997. Subh Ram was a mechanic employed by Satish Jain on job basis. On the fateful day he was called by Satish Jain for fitting a tubewell engine. At 6 PM the complainant came to know from Naval Singh that Subh Ram had gone to fit the engine with Jain's men in a well in Bariyawas and had become unconscious. He was taken out of the well and sent to Rewari for treatment. Chetan Bhatnagar and Parminder Singh, two engineers, of Greaves Company (petitioners herein) and Jain's employee Shiva had also been present at the spot. When the complainant reached the hospital he found his son lying dead. The complainant lodged the report giving the above facts and stating that Subh Ram's death was due to the carelessness of the three men named above. The trial court has framed charge under Section 304-A IPC for committing a negligent act which caused Subh Ram's death.
(3.) THE matter was considered in detail by the learned Addl. C.J.M., who vide orders dated September 25, 1998 had found that charges were not established as the prosecution had not filed copies of the inquest report and the post-mortem report. The said order was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the trial court was directed to consider the framing of charges afresh after calling for the said documents. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material on record and that the accused could be charged under Section 304-A IPC.;