Factory Accident Death: Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Section 304-A IPC Case After Accused Already Convicted Under Factories Act
Andhra Pradesh High Court quashes criminal negligence prosecution against factory supervisor and occupier, holding that prior conviction under the Factories Act bars a parallel IPC trial on identical facts.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has quashed criminal negligence proceedings against a factory supervisor and occupier accused in connection with the death of a crane operator from burn injuries in 2014. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, sitting singly, allowed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held that continuing the prosecution in C.C. No. 476 of 2019 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC would amount to an abuse of process of law. The accused had already been prosecuted and convicted under multiple provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 for violations arising from the very same incident, and no independent act of rash or negligent conduct was attributed to them beyond those safety compliance failures.
The Fatal Accident at Pushpith Steel Private Factory
Sagir Ansari worked as a crane operator at Pushpith Steel Private Factory Limited, Merlapaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal. On the night of 28 October 2014, he left his factory quarters to attend night duty. In the early hours of 29 October 2014, at around 4:50 a.m., hot iron metal being lifted through a ladle fell to the floor, and the ladle sprinkled molten metal in the surrounding area. Ansari sustained burn injuries across his body and was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, where he was found dead.
His wife, the second respondent and informant in the case, lodged a report on 29 October 2014. The Yerpedu police registered Crime No. 128 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused. A postmortem examination revealed the cause of death as neurogenic shock consequent to burns.
During investigation, the Inspector of Factories, Chittoor, submitted a report identifying specific safety failures: non-provision of a Hot Metal Splash Impact Resistance Cabin to the EOT Crane, failure to prevent stagnated water near the pit side, and non-provision of heat-resistant clothing, gloves, and face shields to workers. The Inspector attributed responsibility to A1 as Supervisor, A2 as Occupier, and A3 as Manager under the Factories Act, 1948. The investigation concluded with a charge sheet, and the matter was taken up as C.C. No. 476 of 2019.
The Accused Had Already Been Convicted Under the Factories Act
Before the quashing petition came up, A2 and A3 were prosecuted and convicted in a separate proceeding — C.C. No. 284 of 2015 — before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. By a judgment dated 19 April 2016, the court convicted them for violations under Section 41 read with Rule 61-F(2)(SC)(B), Section 41-C, Section 29 read with Rule 55-A, Section 40(1) read with Rule 102, Section 87 read with Rule 95, Schedule XXX Paragraph 12 read with Section 41, and Rule 61-E read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 — all arising from the same incident. A total fine of Rs. 70,000 was imposed.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the IPC prosecution on the same set of facts, after this conviction, amounted to double jeopardy and an abuse of the process of court.
The Legal Tension: Section 92 Factories Act vs. Section 304-A IPC
Sri P. Madhu Sudhan, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the entire case against A1 and A2 rested on failure to provide statutory safety measures — matters specifically covered by Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. When a special enactment provides punishment for such violations, he argued, a simultaneous prosecution under the general penal law for the very same conduct is not maintainable.
The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He argued that the material collected during investigation disclosed prima facie negligence on the part of A1 and A2 in providing adequate safety measures, which resulted in the death of the deceased. He contended that the Factories Act, 1948 and Section 304-A IPC operate in different fields, and the IPC prosecution was therefore maintainable. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Three precedents were placed before the court: the Supreme Court's ruling in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Another, the Karnataka High Court's decision in G.V. Prasad and Another v. State and Another (Crl. P. No. 200662 of 2024), and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in Neeraj Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sreenivasa Reddy began by setting out the elements of Section 304-A IPC. For the offence to be made out, the death must be the direct or proximate result of a rash or negligent act of the accused. Rashness involves running a risk with recklessness or indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise required care and precaution, amounting to what the court described as the omission to do something a reasonable man would do, or the doing of something a prudent man would not.
Turning to the facts, the court found that the entire case against the petitioners was founded on non-compliance with factory safety requirements: failure to provide the Hot Metal Splash Impact Resistance Cabin to the EOT Crane, failure to prevent stagnated water near the pit side, and non-provision of protective equipment. The Factories Inspector's report itself referred to violations of safety measures under the Factories Act, 1948. Beyond identifying A1 as Supervisor and A2 as Occupier, the prosecution attributed no specific independent act of rash or negligent conduct to either of them.
The court drew directly on the Karnataka High Court's reasoning in G.V. Prasad, where a similar industrial accident arising out of safety violations in a factory led the Karnataka court to hold that simultaneous prosecution under Section 304-A IPC and Section 92 of the Factories Act for the very same incident is impermissible, as the special enactment occupies the field relating to safety violations in factories.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao, the court held that once a person is prosecuted under a special enactment on a particular set of facts, a second prosecution under the general law on the same facts would offend the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 Cr.P.C. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Neeraj Verma had similarly held that where the alleged omission or negligence is specifically covered by the Factories Act, prosecution under Section 304-A IPC on the same allegations is not sustainable.
In the present case, A2 and A3 had already been convicted in C.C. No. 284 of 2015 for Factories Act violations arising from the very same incident. The court held that permitting the prosecution in C.C. No. 476 of 2019 to continue — built on the same allegations and the same cause of action —
Outcome
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy allowed Criminal Petition No. 6113 of 2021. The proceedings against the petitioners — A1 and A2 — in C.C. No. 476 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, are quashed. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the criminal petition are treated as closed.