Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C -2 Case No. 12 of 2009 including the order dated 20.01.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been taken against the petitioners and others. At the outset, it be stated that this application has been filed on behalf of the two petitioners but now it would confine to petitioner No. 1, as according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he would not be pressing this application so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, rather will be seeking liberty to file an appropriate application for redressal of his grievances at an appropriate stage.
(3.) BEFORE adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution, needs to be taken notice of: - A complaint bearing C -2 Case No. 12 of 2009 was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons wherein it has been alleged that on receiving information that one person has died on account of being electrocuted at Surda Coper Mines on 02.04.2008, the Deputy Director of Mines Safety (Electrical) -cum -Inspector of Mines (Electrical) as well as Electrical Inspector, made inspection of Mosabani Concentrator Plant of Surda Copper Mine on 07, 08 & 09 April, 2008 to enquire into the cause and circumstances, which led to the accident whereby three persons got electrocuted while they were working on 3.3. KV switchgear panel without taking proper shutdown, discharging the panel and making the panel earthed. During enquiry, certain contraventions of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956 were found. So far as this petitioner is concerned, following contraventions of the aforesaid rule was found: - 1. In contravention of the provision of Rule 3(2) of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956 and Rule 45(1) & (2) of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 failed to appoint necessary competent persons possessing an appropriate certificate of competency. 2. In contravention of the provision of Rule 131 of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, read with Rule 45(1) & (2) of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, accused No. 1, 2, and 3 failed to appoint Electrical Supervisor and Electricians holding an appropriate certificate of competency.;