Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Madras High Court has recently issued a large number of directions while expressing dissatisfaction and condemning the fact that the Magistrates did not take on file 1.72,602 cases despite chargesheets having been filed within the stipulated time between 2010 and 2018. Such conduct is highly condemnable and hampers the very cause of justice. Justice MV Muralidaran observed that no accused should go unpunished. He further commented, "This Court is unable to presume as to how many accused are left scott-free because of such non-taking on charge sheets on file. This is a matter of grave concern and this Court expresses its displeasure and proposes to take appropriate action against the learned Magistrates."
The court further scorned at the fact that in several cases, police officials had also slacked,with the consequent closure of the FIRs due to non-filing of chargesheets within the period prescribed by law. It observed that the Police officials, particularly the Station House Officers/the Investigating Officers, should ensure that in future no accused should be left scott- free because of non filing of charge sheet within the statutory period, except with just exceptions as contemplated under law.
The appeal
The court heard an appeal filed by M/s. Safire Print Lab Knits and Woven Fabric under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, questioning an award passed in favour of the legal heirs of a deceased employee in May 2018 due to an acid leak accident occurred in the course of his employment. His family members were then awarded compensation of almost Rs. 4 lakhs. This had been questioned by the management of the company.
It had claimed that the employee had not died due to an accident during the course of his employment, but due to the negligence of the doctor, after having been admitted to the hospital. However, the court found that the company's management had not presented any evidence to show that the employee had died due to medical negligence. It added that the mere filing of a criminal complaint alleging medical negligence does not relieve the company of its liability. The court noted the three conditions set forth in Section 3 of the Act:
(a) death or injury must be caused to a workman;
(b) the injury must have been caused by accident, and
(c) the accident must arise out of and in course of employment.
These three conditions had been established in the present case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the court upheld the impugned order. The court had directed the DGP to initiate disciplinary action against erring Investigating Officers who had not filed the final reports within the time limit. Show cause notices were accordingly issued to over seven thousand officers. The court refrained from passing any adverse orders against these officers while warning them against any such conduct in future. It directed the District Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates of various Districts in Tamil Nadu to identify such cases and take them on file without further delay. The Magistrates were directed to file reports before the District Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates within three months. The Registrar General of the court is expected to monitor the progress made in this regard and get periodic reports.
86540
103860
630
114
59824