Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court

"A person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense arising from identical facts. Article 20(2) of the Constitution safeguards against double jeopardy," held the Bombay High Court.

On November 21, 2024, the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against Ajeet Vikram Bahadur Singh, the manager of a Pidilite Industries plant in Satara, Maharashtra. The FIR alleged negligence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following an industrial accident that caused injuries to two workers. The Court ruled that since Singh had already been convicted and penalized under the Factories Act, 1948, for the same incident, the second prosecution under the IPC would amount to double jeopardy, violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC.

The incident occurred on October 26, 2018, when a blaze broke out at Pidilite Industries, reportedly due to a malfunction in the SRP system that caused gas combustion and overheating. Two workers, including the complainant, sustained burns and were hospitalized. An FIR was filed against Singh on November 3, 2018, under Sections 285, 287, 337, and 338 of the IPC, alleging negligence in maintaining machinery.

Separately, the Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health and the Inspector of Factories filed complaints under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Singh pleaded guilty in these cases and was fined Rs. 30,000, of which Rs. 25,000 was paid as compensation to the injured workers.

Singh filed an application to quash the IPC FIR, arguing that being tried again for the same incident violated the principle of double jeopardy.

Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, writing for the Bench, emphasized the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(2), which states:

"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once."

The Court held that the term "same offense" refers to offenses where the ingredients are identical. In this case, the violations under the IPC and the Factories Act stemmed from the same facts and allegations of negligence.

The Court elaborated on Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense once a person has been acquitted or convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction. It stated:

"A bare perusal of both provisions [Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC] reveals that the applicant cannot be tried twice for the same act unless the charges fall under the statutory exceptions provided under subsections (2) to (5) of Section 300 CrPC, which do not apply here."

The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR, including negligent conduct with fire and machinery under Sections 285 and 287 IPC, and causing hurt or grievous hurt under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, were substantively identical to the violations addressed under Section 92 of the Factories Act. It remarked:

"The applicant has already been prosecuted and punished under the Factories Act for negligence leading to the accident. Continuing proceedings under the IPC would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Bench referred to judgments reinforcing the principle of double jeopardy, including:

T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala: Clarified that parallel prosecutions under general and special statutes for the same offense are not permissible.

Mallikarjun K. v. State of Karnataka: Held that police lose jurisdiction to investigate incidents already prosecuted under the Factories Act.

The Court reiterated: "The ratio of these decisions supports the view that a second prosecution for the same set of facts is legally untenable."

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against Singh, stating:

"Prosecuting the applicant again under the IPC would violate his fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and contravene Section 300 of the CrPC. Rule is made absolute in the above terms."

The Court also emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, particularly when they stem from the same incident and have already been adjudicated under a special statute.

This judgment underscores the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and the significance of ensuring that individuals are not subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same act. By quashing the FIR, the Bombay High Court reinforced the principle of judicial economy and the primacy of statutory safeguards in industrial cases.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2024