Payment of compensation does not dismiss claims of neglect: Karnataka High Court declines to dismiss case against BESCOM engineer over transformer explosion.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition from a BESCOM Junior Engineer who sought to dismiss a criminal case against him. This case is linked to a transformer explosion that resulted in the deaths of a man and his daughter. The engineer filed a petition under section 482 of the CrPC to eliminate the charges and proceedings against him. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, on the Single Judge Bench, stated that if officials are not held accountable, similar incidents could happen to others, even if compensation is paid to the victims’ family.
The incident occurred in 2022 when a man named Shivaraj was booking a venue for his daughter’s engagement. As they were heading home, a roadside transformer exploded. The oil from the transformer ignited and burned Shivaraj and his daughter severely. They were rushed to a hospital but unfortunately died from their injuries. Following this, a criminal case was filed against BESCOM officials for violations under Sections 285, 338, and 304A of the IPC. The engineer, who is a BESCOM employee, approached the court due to the ongoing trial.
The engineer’s lawyer argued strongly that the engineer was not responsible for the transformer explosion, claiming it was an accident and that negligence could not be placed on him. The lawyer pointed out that the other accused, including contractors responsible for maintaining the transformer, should be held accountable for the incident.
The Bench stated that the petitioner is accountable for maintaining the transformer, regardless of any contracts. It noted, “The petitioner is responsible for patrolling and maintaining the transformer. While his actions may not be reckless, they are certainly negligent. This conclusion is based on solid evidence.”
The Bench referred to a report from the Electrical Inspectorate, which indicated that BESCOM officers should have checked for oil leaks in the explosion vent and made necessary repairs. If they had done so, the incident could have been prevented. “Thus, there was a failure in duty by the BESCOM officers,” the Bench concluded. Considering the multiple complaints made to fix the transformer issue, the Bench remarked, “The Police included these complaints in the charge sheet. These facts are clear. There is evident negligence on the part of the petitioner and others involved. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the ongoing trial against the petitioner.”
The petitioner argued that since Rs 20,00,000 was paid to his wife as compensation, he should be cleared of the charges. The Bench responded, “This argument is absurd. Compensation from BESCOM does not excuse the officers from their duty failures.” Consequently, the Bench dismissed the Criminal Petition, emphasizing, “The petitioner, charged with neglect alongside AEE and AE, must clear his name in the trial. Compensation cannot erase the allegations of duty failure.”
Cause Title: Mr. Mahanthesh S. Nagur vs State [Case No. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Madesh V.M.
Respondent: Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadeesh
