- (1.) THIS revision application has been preferred by the petitioners, named above, against the order dated 15.3.1999 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ohanbad in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2005, by which their petition dated 15.7.1997 for discharge under Sections 285, 436, 438 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are said to be serving as Assistant Plant Manager (Safety) and Assistant Foreman (Safety) in the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Sindri, Ohanbad on the date of occurrence i,e. 7.5.1982. It is further submitted that at the moment when this revision petition was preferred, they had already retired from active services. As such, at the present, they are above 65 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the incident took place when wooden cooling tower was being dismantled after cutting the portions by Gas Cylinder by contractor with whom the F.C.I. has entered into an agreement to get the cooling tower dismantled and removed. As such the petitioners had no business to ensure any safety measure and prevent the fire, if any, taking place. It is further submitted that the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioners has not considered these aspects, rather, relied upon the evidence collected by police in the case diary, mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners may be discharged. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed these contentions.
(3.) I have gone through the materials on record. This is a case of the year 1982 in which some fire took place while the cooling tower was being dismantled. Admittedly, the work was being performed by outside agency through one Ganpat Roy Rashwasia and the petitioners as serving officers of the F.C.I. used to visit the place of occurrence, supervising the activities. According to the first information report, fire started when Gas Cylinder was being used at the height of 40' to 50' on the cooling tower and some part of the cooling tower caught fire alongwith other materials. Two to three persons were injured resulting in further damage to the properties of the F.C.I. This information was lodged by one of the injured Arun Kumar Oas naming S.N. Jalan, a petty contractor, as an accused. However, during investigation, police submitted charge -sheet against these two petitioners. The learned trial court vide order dated 15.3.1999 has mentioned that there are strong suspicion as well as sufficient ground for conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 285, 436, 438 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, prayer for discharge was rejected. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a high level enquiry conducted by the F.C.I., in which these petitioners have been exonerated of any negligence or misconduct resulting in the fire and the fire took place due to accident.;