1 / 6 2025:CGHC:56348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 638 of 2025 SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation India (SEPCO) Through Mr. Shang Yong S/o Shang Shijun Aged About 52 Years, R/o 236, Gong Ye Bei Road, Jinan, Shandong, China, Presently Working As President (Project) In SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Company (India), Shandong, China. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Balco Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21/02/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Korba, District Korba, C.G. in S.T. No.26/2010 whereby the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.05 12:22:58 +0530 2 / 6 applicant company has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the issue involved in the present criminal revision has already been considered and decided by this Court in CRR No.293 of 2025 {Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 08/05/2025} and other connected matters, therefore, this Criminal Revision may be disposed of in terms of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) (supra). 3. Learned State counsel has no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 08/05/2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.293 of 2025, wherein this Court has passed the following order:- 28. A reading of the Impugned Order shows that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to record a satisfaction that the evidence against the applicants is of a degree higher than charge but less than conviction as required u/S. 319, Cr.P.C. In this case, the Ld. Trial Court has proceeded to summon the applicants based only on the opinion evidence recorded by the IO. There is no observations in the Impugned Order that what is the evidence recorded against the applicants which would lead to a particular offence, much less the offence under S. 304, IPC. The Impugned Order is silent on how the evidence of the IO discloses an offence under S. 304, IPC for 3 / 6 which the Trial is proceeding or under any other offence under the relevant municipal law. Though the power u/S. 165, Cr.P.C. is wide, the consequence of exercising such power must be consistent with other provisions of the Cr.P.C., including S. 319, Cr.P.C. wherein the Ld. Trial Court must be satisfied that a particular offence has been committed. There is no discussion on the logical consequence of the questions posed under S. 165, Cr.P.C. on the exercise of the power u/S. 319. Cr.P.C. 29. Further trial Court ignored the strict legal threshold for invoking section 319, CrPC. The trial Court, in paragraph 37 of its order dated 21.02.2025 categorically observed that “further additional investigation would be necessary in the present case” this finding underscores the absence of conclusive evidence to establish the applicant ’s culpability. However, in paragraph 38, the Court paradoxically invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur to presume negligence against applicants’ company. This reasoning is internally inconsistent and legally untenable, as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur presupposes that the facts are so clear that negligence is self-evident, eliminating the need for further investigation. By simultaneously holding that “additional investigation is necessary” and applying res ipsa loquitur , the Trial Court committed an error in law, rendering its findings perverse. On the other hand, the Court has observed 4 / 6 that there is a requirement of further investigation and on the other hand the learned Court has allowed the application under Section 319 of CrPC which is absurd and perverse and contrary to the settled principle of law envisaged under Section 319 CrPC. Therefore, res ipsa loquitur is not applicable in this case and the applicants can not be summoned/tried for framing of charge under Section 304 of IPC when there is no mens rea of the company. 30. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon perusing the order of the trial Court and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution after 15 years of filing the charge-sheet, filed an application summon the applicants as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., further the impleadment after 15 years of trial, even the High Court had earlier directed to conclude the trial within one year vide order dated 15.09.2023 and also no details are mentioned in the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution as to how the role of the applicants have emerged based on the evidence recorded in trial requiring the applicants to be summoned under S. 319, Cr.P.C., moreover against the applicants there is also no mention as to the evidence which has come during trial disclosing the ingredients of an offence under Section 304 of IPC or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law 5 / 6 for the time being in force and reliance is placed only on the opinion of the IO based on the charge-sheet and according to the well settled position of law that the evidence of an Investigating Officer is not substantive evidence but is only his opinion, even otherwise his statement or the answer to the question put to him in no manner discloses the ingredients of any cognizable offence under the IPC or any other provision of law against the applicants, even in the impugned order, there is no whisper as to what offence has been disclosed to have been committed from the statement of the investigating officer much less any reference to a particular section or the law under which the offence is disclosed and made out and the impleadment application, filed at the far end of the trial, appears aimed at restarting proceedings de novo, causing irreparable prejudice to the applicants. The power to summon new accused requires sufficient evidence during trial, not mere suspicion or charge-sheet material under Section 319 CrPC. As such, so far as present applicants are concerned, the trial Court has committed a grave illegal error to pass the order under Section 319 of CrPC. Thus, the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. 31. Accordingly, the present three criminal revisions are allowed and disposed of. 6 / 6 5. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is disposed of /allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in terms of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) (supra). 6. A copy of the order passed in Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) (supra) be placed in the record of the present criminal revision. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu