The petitioner is a Chairman of National Public School ('NPS'), Bengaluru. The NPS has many branches and one of the branches is near the BSNL office HAL second stage, Bengaluru City. Two huge rain trees were standing on the eastern side of the compound wall had damaged the compound wall by crashing it to two to three feet and it was looking as though they might fall completely in the play area. Therefore to avoid an unpleasant calamity the senior principal of the said school requested the Assistant Conservator of Forest BBMP Bengaluru to grant necessary permission or to take necessary action to cut those trees.
Assistant Conservator of Forest BBMP issued permission to cut those trees where some trees in the premises of the BSNL which is adjacent to the NPS School and the BSNL authorities had got cut those trees through one Syed Zakir. Therefore, the petitioner also asked Sri Syed Zakir, to cut the trees which were on the premises of the NPS School, Sri Syed Zakir brought one Sri Firoz who is arraigned as accused No.1 and introduced to the petitioner and Firoz agreed to cut those trees.
During cutting the branch of the tree, the said branch of the tree fell on the deceased, and consequently the deceased fell, and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a case was been registered at the first instance against the Contractor and also the Management. The police after investigation while filing the charge sheet arraigned the petitioner, who is the Chairman of the School as accused No.2. Hence, the petition was filed before the Court.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that to attract Section 304-A, there must be a direct cause and after taking permission from the concerned Department only, the work was entrusted to accused N.1 to cut and remove the said trees. There is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the petitioner. The police have committed an error in implicating this petitioner, who is the Chairman of the School as accused No.2 and there is no causa causes for the collapse to the building and also the death of the said, Yusuf. Hence, it requires the interference of this Court.
Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2/State vehemently contended that the work entrusted by the accused to accused No.1 to cut and remove the trees, which were hanging on the school building. He is the master for the act of the servant, hence, he is liable for the same. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against this petitioner arraigning him as accused No.2. Hence, there is no merit in the petition to quash the proceedings.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the Chairman of the Institution cannot be prosecuted for an offense punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and there is no direct cause and he was also not present at the spot when the work was going on and he was not supervising the work and the work was entrusted to accused No.1, who was doing the work. Based on entrustment of work, he should have taken more care while cutting and removing the tree as entrusted to him. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein since there is no direct result of rash and negligent act of accused in the case on hand.