IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/8/2026 Shri Shaiju Vadakkumcheri Rappai Vs The State (U.T of Andaman and Nicobar Islands) and Others Mr. Terence D’Cruz … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State Mr. U. Paratha Sarthi … for the respondent no.3 February 10, 2026 [TK] Item No.10 Mr. Terence D’Cruz, Learned Counsel has submitted that his client was not aware of the existence of G. R. Case No. 1225 of 2020 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code originated from F.I.R. No. 283 of 2020 dated 30.09.2020 registered at Police Station Pahargaon. The allegation against his client is as follows : “….On 30/09/2020 at 1700 hours, he [Respondent No. 3] alongwith one Yashwant were at Prothrapur when the distributor [Petitioner] asked them to attend a call regarding poor video quality at a house situated at Atta Chakki, the complaint. Upon this they reached the house of Smti. Prem Sheela Mishra and checked the TV and found poor video. Upon this they removed the TATA Sky dish mounted on the side wall and decided to relocate it on the roof for good signal. At about 1945 hours Yashwant climbed the roof and Vishal passed him the extension cord plugged into power socket and power was switched on by house member. After switching on power Yashwant was electrocuted and he fell down from the roof....” From the above F.I.R. it transpires that the petitioner being the distributor only asked his employees to attend the call of his customer, and while the victim Jaswanth and Vishal went to repair the extension cord, the victim Jaswanth was 2 accidentally electrocuted. The petitioner was not at the place of occurrence and he did nothing in commission of the alleged offence and inspite of that he was entangled in G. R. Case No. 1225 of 2020 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Terence D’Cruz, Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla – versus – State of Maharashtra reported in 1964 INSC 289 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that to impose criminal liability under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be proximate sufficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. It must be the cause causans, it is not enough that it may have been cause sine qua non. According to Hon’ble Apex Court if this view is being generally followed by High Courts in India and in the opinion of the Hon’ble High Court the right view to take of the meaning of Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the G. R. Case No. 1225 of 2020 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair who took cognizance of the offence on 28.10.2021 under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. According to Learned State Counsel that petitioner being the employer of the victim and others should have provided with sufficient equipments so that electrocution of any employee could have been avoided. In this regard, no safety equipments, gloves were provided by the 3 employer at the relevant point of time to his employees and as such, it cannot be said at this stage that petitioner was not negligent for not providing safety equipments to his employees to prevent any contingency. The Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has prescribed several standards required for unearthing whether the allegation of criminality can be taken to the next stage of the proceedings. In other words at the time of taking cognizance the Court is under a duty to see whether there is any cogent material in support of the prosecution case or not. At that stage, the Court is not under an obligation to weigh the evidence. During framing of charge, the Court is entrusted to undergo a higher standard of scrutiny of materials than the materials which were considered at the time of taking cognizance. Furthermore, the highest standard of proof i.e. the prosecution is to prove the case against the accused beyond all sorts of reasonable doubt is, statutorily laid down, to be considered at the time of taking evidence and delivery of judgment. So far as this case is concerned during taking of cognizance the Learned Trial Court has found that the allegation of the prosecution not providing safety equipments to the employees is an act of negligence on the part of the concerned employer. At the time of taking cognizance the Court is not bound to see or weigh the entire evidence. It is true that the petitioner was not present at the spot but at the same time it is also true that he did not provide any safety equipments to his employees particularly when there was chance of 4 electrocution in view of the nature of jobs of the victim. The employer should have foreseen the emergency in the interest of his employees and prima facie that has not been done here and accordingly, at this stage we cannot say that the Learned Trial Court has committed any wrong in taking cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner. However, the cited decision relates to a finding of conviction under Section 304(A) and 285 of the Indian Penal Code. The factual matrix and stage of the proceeding as narrated in the said reported decision is different from the case in hand. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant revisional application and accordingly, C.R.R. 8 of 2026 is dismissed. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)