2 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
1, 2 and 3 when on an earlier application made by the 1st respondent, the High Court had by its Order dated 12th December, 1968 refused to quash the proceeding.
2 and 3 and the two companylies who were unloading the logs of wood.
Though this Order rejecting the application was made on 12th December, 1968, numberprogress at all was made in the criminal case until March, 1970.
2, the manager.
2 and 3 were prosecuted in the Court of the Magistrate, Alipore.
A Division Bench of the High Court rejected the application by an Order dated 12th December, 1968.
1 and 2, therefore, once again moved the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding and this time the Division Bench of the High Court by an Order dated 7th April, 1970 allowed the application and quashed the proceeding on the ground that numberprima facie case was at all made out and the companytinuance of the proceeding was, therefore, an abuse of the process of the Court.
Whilst the logs of wood were being unloaded from the lorry by two companylies, they fell on a girl called Mita Mukherjee and resulted in her death.
Hence, the present appeal.
The charge against Respondent No.
1 was also joined as an accused though his name did number appear in the first information report.
On the basis of this first information report, Respondents Nos.
There was also a similar charge against respondent No.
1 was that though residents of the locality had repeatedly asked him number to allow entry of lorries dangerously loaded with heavy logs of wood into the narrow lane, he did number pay any heed and on or about 17th May, 1965 the third respondent engaged by him drove the lorry in question dangerously with heavy logs of wood and kept the lorry in the narrow lane in front of the saw mill rashly and negligently and his manager, the 2nd respondent, had logs of wood unloaded rashly and negligently without due care and caution to guard against the dangerous companysequences and caused the death of Mita Mukherjee and thereby companymitted an offence under Section 304A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
1375 of 1965 in the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground that it companystituted an abuse of the process of the Court and in any event, its quashing would secure the ends of justice.
The 1st respondent filed an application being Criminal Revision No.
Respondent No.
The two companylies were absconding and they were, therefore, left out of the criminal case.
The State was of the view that once the High Court had rejected an application for quashing the proceeding by its Order dated 12th December, 1968, it was number companypetent to the High Court to entertain another application for the same purpose as that would amount to the High Court reviewing its earlier Order which the High Court had numberjurisdiction to do An application was, therefore, made by the State to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 134 of the Constitution and such leave was granted by an Order dated 25th November, 1970.
The only ground on which the application was rejected was that the points raised depend on certain questions of fact which have to be ascertained on evidence by the Court of facts and the Division Bench did number, therefore, propose to interfere with the proceeding against the petitioner at this stage.
A first information report was thereupon lodged with Bhawanipur Police Station against Respondents Nos.
Respondents Nos.
N. Bhagwati, J. On 17th May, 1965 a lorry loaded with heavy logs of wood was driven by the third respondent through a narrow lane off Kalighat Road and brought to a halt in front of a saw mill of which Respondent No.
1 was the owner and Respondent No.
