D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) PRONOUNCED on 18.01.2011 D.K. Sinha,J. The instant petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Petitioners herein for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them in connection with Gulmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 184 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. No. 1861A/1990 including the order dated 04.09.1991 by which the cognizance of the offence under Sections 337/287/304A and 201 I.P.C. was taken against the Petitioners by the C.J.M., Jamshedpur now pending before the Court of Shri Taufique Ahmad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that on 26.11.1990 a column was being erected inside the factory premises of M/s Indian Tube Company Limited ( a Unit of M/s Tata Steel Company Limited) at about 2.30 p.m. and in course of erection of the column while the overhead crane was carrying iron material, the part of the crane broke into and the iron materials which were being carried out by the crane fell down causing hurt to the informant Maheshwar Singh and the co -worker S.K. Das, as a result of which S.K. Das succumbed his injuries on the spot. It is further stated that after investigation charge -sheet was submitted under Sections 337/287/304A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as against the Petitioners and other accused persons. Advancing his argument, learned Counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha submitted that even if assuming the entire case to be true in its entirety, no offence alleged under the penal provisions of I.P.C. could be attracted against any of the Petitioners on the face of special legislation of Factories Act. The Petitioner No. 1 at the relevant point of time was Safety Officer and now aged about 74 years leading a retired life. Petitioner No. 2 was also Chief Safety Officer at the relevant time and now his age was 75 years. Petitioner No. 3 was Assistant Manager, Tubes Division whereas the Petitioner No. 4 was the Divisional Manager, Tubes Division and all the Petitioners are facing trial for the last 20 years in a summons trial case.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument, learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners had earlier moved a petition under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 13.01.2005 and consequently a Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2005, which was preferred by the Petitioners against the said order was affirmed on 6.04.2005, however, with the observation calling upon the Trial Court to conclude the trial within four months but it could not be concluded within time framed. The Petitioners were unnecessarily being harassed for the protracted and prolonged trial in a summons trial case being continued for more than 20 years which has occasioned failure of justice and contrary to the guarantee given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore, the entire criminal prosecution of the Petitioners may be set aside/quashed by this Court.;