Gujarat High Court
Jaydip Balubhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 25/08/2025
Pronounced On : 08/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1216 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1365 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAYDIP BALUBHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS TOLIA SR.ADV. WITH MR DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s)
No.1 IN CR.RA/1216 OF 2025
MR VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA for the Applicant(s) No.1 IN CR.RA/1365 OF
2025
MR VIRAT G POPAT SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (3710) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NARENDRASINH R JADEJA(8047) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08/09/2025
1. Rule. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Virat Popat waives service of Rule for the respondent no.1. Page 1 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
2. Since both the present revision applications are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the same are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Both the present revision applications have been preferred by the respective applicants against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.169 of 2024 below exh.94, framing the charge against the present applicants.
4. The short facts leading to the filing of the present revision applications are that as per the case of the prosecution, on 25.05.2024 at around 17:47 hrs., P.S.I. - Shri Pragneshkumar Bhikhabhai Tarajiya, who was present at the police station, received a call from PCR - 22 through the in-charge police constable, informing him that fire had broken out around 17:00 hrs. at the TRP Page 2 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Game Zone, Rajkot situated behind Sayaji hotel and immediately, the first informant, along with the other police personnel, rushed to the scene to manage the crowed and co-ordinate with the control room for additional support. The said TRP Game Zone was a partnership venture, operated by 7 individuals, namely, accused nos.1 - Dhaval Bharatbhai Thakar, accused no.2
- Ashoksinh Jagdishsinh Jadeja, accused no.3 - Kiritsinh Jagdishsinh Jadeja, accused no.4 - Prakashchand Kanaiyalal Hiran, accused no.5 - Yuvrajsinh Harisinh Solanki and accused no.6 - Rahul Lalitbhai Rathod. 4.1. As per the case of the prosecution, the said game zone was housed in tin-shed structure, measuring approximately 60 ft. in length, 50 ft. in width and having 2 to 3 storeys in height. It also had an adjacent go-karting track, including various indoor and outdoor recreational activities and the structure caught fire while welding work was going on in the said game zone, despite strong winds. As a result, devastating fire broke out, leading to Page 3 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the tragic deaths of 27 individuals, including men, women and children. After the efforts were put by the fire officials, the fire was extinguished and several charred bodies were recovered from the site and were sent to the civil hospital. Initially, Accidental Death Diary No.43 of 2024 was registered.
4.2. During the investigation, it was transpired that the partners of the TRP Game Zone had neither obtained the requisite permission for construction nor obtained mandatory Fire Safety No-objection Certificate from the fire department and despite being aware of the serious risks involved, they proceeded to construct and operate the facility and thereby, endangered the public safety. The investigation further revealed that the entire structure was fabricated using iron frames and galvanized tin sheets and the interior contained multiple compartments with extensive electrical wiring and air- conditioning vents. In such a set-up, in the event of fire, effective control was nearly impossible in absence of Page 4 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined adequate fire safety equipment and planning. No fire safety NOC was obtained, nor there was any proper fire control plan nor safety system implemented. 4.3. The Town Planning Officers failed to act with the requisite sensitivity and diligence in demolishing the illegal construction, despite having prior knowledge of the same. Though some formal notices were issued to the concerned, no concrete or effective steps were taken pursuant to the said notices to enforce the same and similarly, the Fire Officers failed to act in accordance with the prescribed fire safety norms and did not initiate any preventive or corrective action. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said TRP Game Zone had also failed to comply with various norms and regulations prescribed by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, especially those concerning unauthorized constructions, payment of impact fees and implementation of fire safety measures. Upon examination of the records from the West Zone Town Planning Office of RMC, the Page 5 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined investigating agency noted irregularities and lapses in the processing of the TRP Game Zone's file, suggesting collusion and gross procedural violations. 4.4. Accordingly, an FIR came to be registered under Sections 304, 308, 337, 338 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the partners of the TRP Game Zone and other responsible individuals. Subsequently, based on the investigation, supplementary reports were filed, invoking additional charges under Sections 36, 465, 466, 471, 474, 120B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation also led to the implication of senior officers of the Town Planning Office and the Fire Department of RMC, namely, (i) Town Planning Officers (ii) Executive Engineer (iii) Assistant Town Planning Officer (iv) Assistant Town Planning Officer (v) Assistant Town Planning Officer (vi) Fire Station Officer, Kalawad (vii) Deputy Chief Fire Officer and (viii) Chief Fire Officer. The said officials alleged to have committed acts of omission and negligence in discharge of their official duties, which Page 6 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined directly contributed to the occurrence of the tragic fire incident. As per the chargesheet, accused nos.1 to 6 are the partners/owners of the TRP Game Zone, accused no.7 is the Welding Work Contractor, accused nos.8 to 12 are the public servants from the West Zone Town Planning Office, RMC and accused nos.13 to 15 are the Fire Officers of RMC and the chargesheet has been filed against all the accused persons, pursuant to which, some of the accused persons had preferred an application for discharge, which came to be rejected and subsequently, the present revision applications have been filed. Submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025.
1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia assisted by learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Tolia for the applicant submitted that initially, the revision application has been preferred against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.169 of 2024, rejecting the applications Page 7 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined for discharge preferred by the various accused persons, including the present applicant vide exhs.72, 64, 43, 58, 57, 53 and 60 and the common order has been passed on 07.07.2025, rejecting the discharge applications of the accused persons.
1.1. Challenging the said order, the present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant but, during the pendency of the present revision application, the learned Sessions Court has framed the charge against all the accused persons on 17.07.2025 vide exh.94 and, therefore, amendment has been moved by the present applicant and subsequently, the same was allowed and pursuant to the amendment, the present applicant has challenged the order of framing of charge against him vide exh.94.
1.2. It is submitted that the present applicant is shown as original accused no.11 in the chargesheet and on the date of incident, he was employed as an Assistant Engineer in Page 8 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the office of the Town Planning Officer in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that as per exh.94, so far as the present applicant is concerned, he has been charged along with the other officers of the Town Planning office, more particularly, the charge has been framed under Sections 304, 308, 337, 338, 36, 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been challenged by preferring the present revision application.
1.3. It is submitted that the present applicant is in the office of the Town Planning department at Rajkot Municipal Corporation since 2014 and vide order issued by the Assistant Election Officer, Rajkot Lok Sabha dated 08.12.2023, he was appointed as a Zonal Officer for the Rajkot Lok Sabha Voting Ward No.70 and the applicant was also assigned an additional duty of the Lok Sabha election. Further, the applicant was transferred to the post of Assistant Engineer, Town Planning from the post of Assistant Engineer Civil on 15.03.2024 and on Page 9 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 24.04.2024, the applicant was given additional duty of Lok Sabha election. Further, it is submitted that the applicant, vide order dated 03.05.2024, issued by the Assistant Election Officer, Rajkot Lok Sabha Voting Ward No.70, was posted as polling officer during the election of Lok Sabha. It is submitted that the present applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused in the alleged offence and is completely innocent. It is submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also, the chargesheet fails to prima facie satisfy the ingredients of either of the allege offence qua the present applicant. It is submitted that the order rejecting the discharge application passed by the learned Sessions Judge and subsequently framing the charge against the present applicant is erroneous and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the non- existence of the material qua the present applicant and, therefore, the order of framing of charge is also required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 10 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 1.4. It is submitted that from the chargesheet papers, there is no any iota of evidence on record nor any documentary material suggesting any act or omission on the part of the present applicant, which reveals the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury which likely to cause death.
1.5. As per the case of the prosecution, the offences alleged against the present applicant, by no stretch of imagination, can reasonably cause to conclude the existence of intention on the part of the applicant to initiate any fire at the Game Zone. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code are also absent. It is submitted that from the chargesheet papers and the material produced therewith, it appears that the present applicant possesses a knowledge that a specific act of a specific nature committed in specific manner shall invariably lead to death of an individual. It is submitted that the present applicant was transferred in the month of March, 2024 Page 11 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined and the incident took place in the month of May, 2024. It is further submitted that even for the sake of arguments, assuming that the offences alleged by the prosecution are true and correct then also, the investigating officer ought to have at least, established basic nexus between the occurrence and the scope of duty of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant was admittedly serving at the post of Assistant Engineer at the Town Planning Department. The applicant's duty was to ensure that the structural integrity of a premises is such that it can withstand the purpose for which, it is erected. It is submitted that in the present case, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the unfortunate incident transpired on 25.05.2024 was due to the collapse of the structure or was inherently rooted in the dilapidated condition of the premises. The unfortunate incident occurred due to non-compliance of fire safety norms, standards, rules and regulations and thus, the allegation of negligence is only attributable on the part of the department and officers, who are duty bound to ensure Page 12 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined fire safety and strict implementation of fire safety norms, standards, rules and regulations. Further, it is submitted that the chargesheet papers do not reveal as to how, the applicant is responsible for intentional breach of norms that led to the transpiration of the unfortunate incident. 1.6. It is submitted that to invoke the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, from the material produced along with the chargesheet, it must, prima facie, satisfy that the applicant had acted so rashly and negligently that his rash and negligent act endangered the human life or personal safety of others and lead to infliction of hurt or grievous hurt. It is submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has been unable to even chalk out the parameters of power, duty, responsibility and operation of the post of Assistant Engineer, Town Planning Department and its nexus with the unfortunate occurrence and, therefore, also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Page 13 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 1.7. It is submitted that it is a settled principle of interpretation that criminal or punitive provisions are to be construed literally. It is also imperative to point out that mere omission by itself does not amount to rash or negligent act and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically clarified that the death, grievous hurt or hurt have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of an accused and the act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence.
1.8. It is submitted that in the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged offence had occurred due to the negligence of accused nos.1 to 6, who had not complied with any fire safety norms and were conducting welding activities near extremely combustible material and the entire incident could have been prevented, if the accused nos.13 to 15, who are the officers of the fire department, would have acted as per the scope of their duty.
Page 14 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 1.9. It is submitted that an individual of commission of forgery, the prosecution must unequivocally at least reveal that the accused is a maker of a false document, as provided under Section 464 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that mere perusal of all the papers of chargesheet, it is apparent that the prosecution has completely failed to reveal that the applicant is maker of a false document.
1.10. It is submitted that even from the chargesheet papers, it appears that total 6 statements of Maheshbhai Pravinbhai Chavda were recorded, which would reveal the entire modus of creating false document. The said witness reveals that witness, namely, Harshal Doshi had telephonically called him on the date of incident i.e. on 25.05.2024 and asked him to remain present at the office and witness - Maheshbhai Pravinbhai Chavda reveals that once he arrived at the office, he was confronted by witness, namely, Harshal Doshi and accused nos.9 and Page 15 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
12. The accused nos.9 and 12 and witness - Harshal Doshi conspired and connived to mutate inward register to the effect of inserting a back dated application preferred by the accused no.5 and as per the statement of witness - Maheshbhai Pravinbhai Chavda, he named each person, who had connived, participated, aided and abetted in creating of false documents, mutating and forging new inward register and destroying the original register. As per the statement of the said witness, he has not mentioned any role attributed to the present applicant in making of a false document. It is submitted that the alleged commission of offence of forgery was unearthed by the prosecution by placing reliance upon the statements of witness - Maheshbhai Pravinbhai Chavda and Harshal Doshi. It is submitted that the statements of witness - Harshal Doshi reveal that it was accused no.9, who was not only connived the plan but, actively participated in the alleged act of forging of registers and creating back dated documents.
Page 16 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 1.11. It is submitted that Section 464 of the IPC defines making of a false document and ingredients of Section 464 are also not satisfied. It is submitted that as per the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is explicitly stated that satisfaction of ingredients of Section 464 of Indian Penal Code are condition precedent for alleging commission of offence under Sections 465, 466, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has completely and apparently failed to prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Section 464 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, rendering the reset of the alleged offences under Sections 465, 466, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code completely baseless. It is submitted that there is no evidence that the present applicant has committed an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code or he in any way, involved in hatching of the conspiracy and the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the present applicant - accused. Page 17 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 1.12. It is submitted that the charge has been framed under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant - accused. It is submitted that the prosecution, from the chargesheet papers, failed to reveal intention or knowledge of causing death or intention of causing injury likely to cause death on the part of the applicant. It is submitted that at the most, only the offence under Section 304A can be attributed but, the act of the present applicant or omission has no nexus with the incident took place on 25.05.2024. It is submitted that so far as Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not satisfied and the prosecution fails to reveal intention of causing death or intention of causing injury, likely to cause death on the part of the present applicant is also not satisfied. It is submitted that considering the above, there is no iota of evidence to frame the charge against the present applicant - accused. Merely, if the present applicant is found to be negligent, there may be a dereliction in his duty only and his dereliction or omission of his duty has no direct Page 18 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined connection to the incident of fire took place at the TRP Game Zone. Further, it is submitted that the present applicant is only following the orders of the higher officers. Initially, when the said structure was found to be without any permission, notice under Section 260(1) of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act has been issued and it was within the knowledge of the other officers of the Town Planning Department but, they have not taken any action and not given any direction to the present applicant and, therefore, it is submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the present applicant - accused to frame the charge against him.
1.13. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia has relied upon the following decisions:-
"(i) Sushil Ansal vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014)6 SCC 173;
(ii) Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P., reported Page 19 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined in (1996)6 SCC 129;
(iii) Noormida vs. State of Kerala, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.
MC. No.314 of 2025;
(iv) Mayur Mukundbhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat and other, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1717;
(v) State of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai, reported in (1976)1 SCC 889;
(vi) Niranjan Singh Karam Singh vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others, reported in (1990)4 SCC 76;
(vii) Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 502;
(viii) P.B. Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2013)15 SCC 481;
(ix) Vallabhbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Anil Amarsinh Rathod and others, rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2081 of 2008 and allied matters."
Submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1365 of 2025.
Page 20 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
1. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala for the applicant submitted that the present revision application has been preferred against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.169 of 2024, framing charge below exh.94. It is submitted that the present applicant has been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 308, 337, 338 and 36 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the present applicant - accused is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. The applicant came to be impleaded with a view to cover up the lacking of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that the present applicant was arraigned as an accused no.13 in the chargesheet. It is alleged by the prosecution that the TRP Game Zone, which falls within the jurisdiction of Kalawad Road Sub-Fire Station, did not possess the requisite fire NOC. It is submitted that despite the fire incident dated 04.09.2023, which was allegedly within the knowledge of the present applicant, as he was the Fire Station Officer at the relevant time and also within the Page 21 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined knowledge of his supervisory officers, namely, Bhikhabhai Jivabhai Theba i.e. accused no.14, Deputy Chief Fire Officer - Ileshkumar Valabhai Kher i.e. accused no.15 and Chief Fire Officer at the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, no action was taken by them and further, the chargesheet alleged that there was inaction and negligence on the part of the applicant in his capacity as a concerned Fire Station Officer. It is submitted that despite the same, the said Fire Station Officers have failed to take any necessary action and the said unfortunate incident took place. It is submitted that all the decisions and powers relating to regulations for fire safety were vested with the Chief Fire Officer. It is submitted that the License Department of the office of the Police Commissioner of Rajkot City has forwarded copy of the booking license for 'Race Way Enterprises' to the Chief Fire Officer and the same was signed by the Chief Fire Officer and marked to the Deputy Chief Fire Officer however, no instructions to take any steps were given. It is submitted that despite having copy of the TRP Game Zone's license, no steps Page 22 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined were allegedly taken by the Fire Officers to enforce mandatory fire safety measures. It is submitted that the accused nos.14 and 15 have neglected their duties by failing to inspect and ensure fire safety compliance. It is submitted that on 04.09.2023, as per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant was given the duty in the convoy of the Hon'ble Chief Minister at Rajkot so, on 04.09.2023, when the incident of fire has taken place in the TRP Game Zone, the present applicant has no knowledge regarding the same. Further, until 01.07.2024 and 10.07.2024 i.e. after the date of incident and prior to the incident dated 25.05.2024, there was no demarcation of jurisdictional boundaries of the fire stations, as there was no formal or official jurisdictional demarcation assigned to any of the fire stations.
1.1. It is submitted that the present applicant is wrongly arraigned as an accused on the basis of the one of the statements of Mubarakbhai Kasambhai Juneja. Further, it is submitted that as per the Gujarat Fire Prevention and Page 23 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Life Safety Measures Act, 2013, it was not the duty of the present applicant to verify the fire NOC or granting of NOC or power to check ensuring installation of the fire safety equipment because, as per the Act, it was totally under the domain of the Head Office i.e. the Chief Fire Officer -accused no.14 and the present applicant had to work only as much as it would be directed by the superior officers. It is submitted that as per the statement of Mubarakbhai Juneja, Station Officer of Mavdi Sub-Fire Station, in his official report dated 28.05.2024 and fire reports submitted to the Chief Fire Officer, it does not mention, informing the present applicant about the fire incident dated 04.09.2023. However, in his subsequent statement before the police on 31.05.2024, after the present applicant was arrested by the police, he claimed to have informed the applicant and the said discrepancy falsely accuses the applicant of having knowledge of fire incident dated 04.09.2023. Even the official records suggest that the present applicant was not even intimated or informed regarding the incident of fire took place at Page 24 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined TRP Game Zone on 04.09.2023 as the present applicant was in convoy of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the said date and when the fire call was received by the main control room on 04.09.2023, it was directly assigned to Mavdi fire station, which was handled by Mr.Mubarak Junaja and in spite of that, there was not even a formal intimation to the Kalavad Fire Station, no entry in log- book, nor any register maintained for fire reports also and it was a routine and mandatory practice that each and every fire incidents or calls have to be directly reported to the Chief Fire Officer and the Deputy Chief Fire Officer i.e. accused nos.14 and 15. Further, he also adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia and submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
1.2. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.3942 of Page 25 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 2014 in the case of Girishbhai Maganlal Pandya vs. State of Gujarat. It is submitted that present revision application is required to be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Virat Popat has vehemently opposed the present revision applications and submitted that at this stage, the Court has not to consider the defense of the accused persons. It is submitted that so far as applicant - Mr.Jaydip Balubhai Chaudhary of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025 is concerned, at the relevant time, he was working as a Town Planning Engineer in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that from the investigation, it transpired that he has accepted the application for regularization from the TRP Game Zone owners in spite of the fact that notice under Section 260(1) has already been issued against the TRP Game Zone. It is submitted that it was within the knowledge of the present applicants Page 26 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
- accused that the construction was totally illegal. It is submitted that from the material produced along with chargesheet, it is specifically coming on record that there is a combination of an act of commission of offence and also omission, failure to act, which resulted into the offence. It is submitted that so far as the present applicants - accused are concerned, the charge has been framed by the Court for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 308, 337, 338 and 36 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that it was coming on record that it was known to all the accused, who were in the Town Planning offices of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation that the construction was illegal, even the notices under Section 260(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act have already been issued and it was decided to remove or demolish the construction and the present applicant has visited the TRP Game Zone prior to the incident but, for their personal benefits, they have not taken any decision Page 27 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined to remove the said illegal construction and because of the act of omission on their part, unfortunate incident of 25.05.2024 has taken place wherein, 27 innocent people lost their lives. Further, it is submitted that, at the relevant time, the applicant was working as an Assistant Engineer in ward no.10 and it was within the knowledge of the present applicant that the said construction of TRP Game Zone was illegal and even the notices under the GPMC Act were already issued, orders have already been passed and in spite of that, as the construction was after the year 2022, the same cannot be regularized. It is submitted that knowing the said fact, the present applicant has accepted the amount of Rs.100/- on 22.07.2024 from accused no.5 to grant the impact file presented by the accused no.5. Further, it is submitted that it was come on record that on the date of incident, the file of impact fee moved by the owner of the TRP Game Zone has not been inward in the register of the Corporation in spite of the fact that the present applicant, in connivance with the other officers of the Rajkot Page 28 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Municipal Corporation, made an entry in the inward register of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation on the date of incident and the date was mentioned in the file as 04.05.2024 and it was registered as entry nos.2739 and 2740 and in the antedates in the impact plan, a query letter was issued for showing the date 09.05.2024 and even the wrong entry has been mentioned in the outward register also and the original register was destroyed. It is submitted that considering the same, there is a prima facie evidence found against the present applicant - accused. Further, it is submitted that so far as the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1365 of 2025 is concerned, on 04.09.2023, when the incident of fire taken place at the TRP Game Zone, in spite of the fact that the present applicant, who was a fire Station Officer and had knowledge regarding the same, he has not taken any action and subsequently, the incident took place. It is submitted that it was within the knowledge of the present applicant and other fire officers that there were no sufficient fire safety equipment at the TRP Game Zone Page 29 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined and they have not obtained any NOC of fire and in spite of the same, they have not taken any decision and, therefore, the learned trial Court has framed the charge against the present applicant - accused under Sections, 304, 308, 337, 338 read with Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the sufficient evidence has been found against the present applicant and the Court has framed the charge against him. It is submitted that before the learned Sessions Court, the trial has already been commenced and the learned Sessions Court has already started calling witnesses. It is submitted that, therefore, both the revision applications are without any merits and are required to be dismissed.
6. Heard the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
7. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Page 30 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012)9 SCC 460. Relevant observations made in paras 8 and 9 of the said judgment read as under:-
"8. ..... Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very Page 31 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C....."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in 2023(17) SCC 688 held in paras 7,8,9,10,11,12,14 and 15, which as under:-
"7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not Page 32 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only.
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the Page 33 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O.
10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for Page 34 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be Page 35 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined discharged. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.
14. This Court in the aforesaid judgement has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in Page 36 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is sought for as under:
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1 . Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to Page 37 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere.
No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.9 . Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the Page 38 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."
15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge."
9. In the case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2024(8) SCR 700, para 10 of the said judgment, reads as under:-
"10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that sub- section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non- compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court Page 39 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order."
10. Considering the above dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that so far as the jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under the said Section is extremely limited. Unless and until the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous or there is no compliance of the provisions of law or findings recorded by the learned trial Court based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored, in that circumstances only, the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In both the present revision applications, the order under challenge is of framing of charge against the applicants of the respective revision applications. Page 40 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
11. From the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. C.B.I., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following principles on the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-
"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter Page 41 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is Criminal Revision No. 240/2022 opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.Page 42 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
12. So far as the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025 is concerned, he was shown as accused no.11 in the chargesheet and at the time of incident, he was working as Assistant Town Planning Officer in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. From the material produced along with the chargesheet, it emerges from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the documentary evidence collected during the investigation, that it was within the knowledge of all the accused persons, who, at the relevant time, were working in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, that the construction of the TRP Game Zone was illegal and pursuant to the said illegal construction, notices were issued under the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and the injunction orders have already Page 43 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined been passed. Also, the order has been passed by putting up the same before the concerned authority to demolish the said construction and in spite of that, the present applicants and other accused persons, in connivance with each other, have not taken any initiative to demolish the said construction. Further, though they were knowing that the said construction was illegal, they allowed the said Game Zone to be continued and no action has been taken.
13. Further, it also emerges from the material produced by the investigating agency and the chargesheet that, the present applicant, at the relevant time, was Assistant Engineer in the Town Planning Office of ward no.10 and the said TRP Game Zone falls under the ward no.10. The applicant was having a knowledge that initially, the notices under the provisions of the GPMC Act were issued and the injunction orders have been passed. The applicant was also knowing the fact that the construction of the Game Zone was after the year 2022 and as the Page 44 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined construction was after the year 2022, the impact plan cannot be sanctioned by the Corporation. In spite of this fact, the present applicant has taken scrutiny fee of Rs.100/- on 22.04.2024 from accused - Ashoksinh Jagdishsinh Jadeja for impact file of the TRP Game Zone. It also emerges that after the scrutiny fee has been accepted, the applicant has not made entry in the inward register of the file of TRP Game Zone and subsequently, all the accused persons, more particularly, original accused nos.8,9,11 and 12, who were in the Town Planning Department of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, hatched a criminal conspiracy and after the said incident has taken place, they came to the office and subsequently, on the date of incident, in the night, they have made an entry of the file on 04.05.2024 and as there was some space between inward entry nos.2739 and 2740, between these two entries, they have made entry of the file of Ashoksinh Jagdishsinh Jadeja on the said date i.e. 04.05.2024. Thereafter, on the antedate i.e. on 09.05.2024, in the outward register, entry was made to Page 45 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined raise a quarry letter and as no space was found to make a mention of the entry in the outward register, they have destroyed the outward register and created a new outward register of the Town Planning Department of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation and have prepared bogus documents by destroying the outward register.
14. As the present applicants, along with the other officers of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, were knowing the fact that the construction of the said TRP Game Zone was illegal and it has not obtained any permission and also knowing that if the construction would have been regularized, then there must be a proper entry and exit points and thus, they could have avoided the said unfortunate incident.
15. So far as the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia for the applicant, more particularly, in the case of Sushil Ansal (supra), Keshub Mahindra (supra), P.B. Desai Page 46 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined (supra) and also in the case of Mayur Mukundbhai Desai (supra) and so far as the main argument that apparently, there was no direct nexus between the negligency in duty of the present applicant and the incident of fire and because of which, unfortunately, 27 people have lost their life and there was no intention or knowledge of the present applicant to commit a culpable homicide, not amounting to murder and also, an alternate argument that Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted but, at the most, Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted, are concerned, the learned trail Judge, while rejecting the discharge application of the present applicant, has specifically observed that the material available, including documentary evidence and statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, show that all these accused were well aware of the unauthorized and illegal construction being carried out at the TRP Game Zone premises, located in ward no.10. Being the designated officers of the civic body, they were duty-bound to ensure compliance with Page 47 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined municipal building laws, safety regulations and zoning norms. In spite of the fact that the notices under Section 260(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act were issued, the accused persons willfully failed to take further mandatory steps, such as passing the demolition orders under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act and despite the knowledge of the illegality and the evident threat posed to human life and safety, directly enabled the continued operation of the amusement facility for an extended period and tragically, this inaction facilitated the circumstances that led to the fire incident of 25.05.2024, which resulted into death of 27 innocent persons, including women and children and the act of omission by these officials falls within the meaning of "illegal omission" as defined under Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code and by that, they have committed an offence under Sections 304, 308, 337 and 338 read with Sections 36 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also observed that the present applicants along with the other officials of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, involved in Page 48 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined preparing false and fabricated official records, destroying original municipal documents, registers and subsequently, made false entries, post incident in an attempt to save themselves from legal accountability and these acts were not only intended to obstruct the administration of justice but, also amounted to tampering with the evidence. It is observed by the learned trial Court that the accused nos.8,9,11 and 12 have committed an offence under Sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also observed that there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 for the above offenses and their acts and omissions, individually and collectively, facilitated the unlawful operation of the game zone and ultimately contributed to the tragic loss of lives and the record discloses a clear nexus between their dereliction of duty, subsequent cover-up and the fatal consequences thereby, justifying their prosecution.
16. So far as the role attributed to the applicant of Page 49 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Criminal Revision Application No.1365 of 2025 is concerned, the learned advocate has mainly adopted the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia for the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025. From the record, it transpires that the present applicant, who has been shown as accused no.13, was serving as a Fire Officer at Kalavad Fire Station along with other accused, who were the Deputy Chief Fire Officer and Chief Fire Officer, being accused nos.14 and 15, as public servants. Further, from the statements of witnesses recorded, more particularly, of Mr.Mubarak Juneja, it prima facie emerges that the TRP Game Zone amusement facility was being operated without the requisite fire NOC and that this fact was within the knowledge of these fire officials well before the tragic incident of 25.05.2024. Even earlier, when the fire incident took place at the same premises on 04.09.2023, it was within their knowledge and despite of this fact, no meaningful or remedial action was taken and also, the record reflects that instead of ensuring strict compliance Page 50 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined with fire safety norms or recommending closure or demolition, the present applicants - accused, along with the other accused persons, allowed the operations to continue, thereby permitting a grave risk to public life and safety and deliberately, omitted to act, especially in light of the past fire incident and having clear knowledge of fire NOC violations, they remained silent spectators by this gross and culpable negligence. Their failure to discharge statutory duties amounts to an illegal omission under Section 33 Indian Penal Code and, therefore, they found to be liable for the said offence.
17. So far as the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr.H.S. Tolia for the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025 and learned advocate Mr.V.K. Anandjiwala for the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1365 of 2025 regarding that the applicants are only following the orders of the superior officers are concerned, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has not to consider the defense taken Page 51 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined by the accused persons. It is also well settled that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only expected to presume that prima facie, the offence has been committed, on the basis of the material adduced by the prosecution, which discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and the law does not allow the Court to hold a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. Only, the Court has to see whether the material on record is suffice enough to proceed against the accused for framing a charge and only adjudicate the matter after recording the evidence and at the relevant time, the Court has also not to consider the contradictions and omissions in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it has been only permitted after the trial is completed and further, at that time, the Court has not to consider whether the material available will bring home the conviction or would result into acquittal of the accused.
18. Considering the above, I have perused the charge Page 52 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1216/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined framed by the learned Sessions Court and also perused the order of rejection of discharge application of the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.1216 of 2025. I do not find any gross illegality committed by the learned trial Court by framing the charge. Further, the order of framing of charge does not found to be perverse and it is also required to be considered, at this stage, that the trial has already been commenced before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court has also started calling witnesses. Therefore, I do not find any merits in both the present revision applications. 19 Accordingly, both Criminal Revision Application Nos.1216 and 1365 of 2025 are hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 53 of 53 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:44:14 IST 2025