2022 FATAL ZUARI BLAST
PANAJI
In a major relief for five officials of Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited (ZACL) in the 2022 blast case that claimed the lives of three workers, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed the chargesheet against them. The officials were charged under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.
Govind Lotlikar, Deepak Usgaonkar, Rohit Shirate, Saish Bichokar and Mahesh Prabhudessai had appealed before the High Court in a criminal writ petition for quashing of the charge sheet. In the incident that occurred on May 3, 2022, three labourers died in a blast in the under-maintenance ammonia tank at the ZACL plant.
The petitioners Govind Lotlikar, Deepak Usgaonkar, Rohit Shirate, Saish Bichokar and Mahesh Prabhudessai, had filed criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of the chargesheet. On May 3, 2022, three labourers died in a blast in the under-maintenance ammonia tank at the ZACL plant.
As per the charge sheet, the accused were tasked with supervising the contracted workers who were carrying out maintenance work, including the opening of a manhole lid on the condensate tank. The police alleged that due to the accused's failure to supervise, the workers used the wrong tools, which led to the explosion. “As a result of the failure to supervise, the accused endangered the life of other workers working in the vicinity,” it stated.
During the hearing of the plea before the Bench of Justice M S Karnik and Justice Nivedita Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor Nikhil Vaze argued that the evidence on record justified the prosecution against the accused. Opposing the plea, he pointed out that a cold work permit had been issued for the maintenance but a gas-cutting machine was used without obtaining the mandatory hot work permit, which led to the explosion.
The High Court, however, opined that the evidence in the chargesheet failed to establish any prima facie case against the accused.
“…There is nothing on record to indicate that it is the present petitioners who were responsible for supervising the work of the contractor. Except that they are employees of ZACL, there is absolutely no material on record to demonstrate that the task of supervising the contracted employees for the maintenance works was theirs or that they have acted rashly or are responsible for the negligence in any manner for the incident that took place,” the Court said.
The contractor for the maintenance M/s Bokaro Industrial Works was engaged by ZACL. The prosecution further submitted that it was the contractor's responsibility to ensure proper procedures and the accused officials of ZACL were negligent in their supervisory roles.
The court referred to the prosecution under the Factories Act wherein the occupier and manager of ZACL are being prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Vasco and not the petitioners. The order thus quashed the charge sheet against the petitioners. “…On the basis of the material as it stands even if taken at its face value, we have no hesitation in opining that none of the ingredients of Sections 304-A and 336 of IPC are attracted. Except for the indication that the petitioners are employees of ZACL, the role of the petitioners-accused is not at all spelt out… the charge-sheet is quashed qua the present petitioners only,” reads the order.
