Gujarat High Court
Ashok Vrajlal Khakkhar vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 179 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHOK VRAJLAL KHAKKHAR & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Savarkundla below application Exhibit 8 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2020.
3. The brief facts of the case are the an FIR being I-C.R. No. 11 of 2008 came to be registered on 08.04.2008 with Savarkundla Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 407, 286 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in connection with an incident dated 26.03.2008. It is the case of Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the prosecution that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had arranged for illegal unloading of a tanker bearing registration No. GJ-6-9381 containing M.F.O. (Mixed Fuel Oil), which was originally loaded from GAIL India Company, Waghodia for delivery at Chhattisgarh, at a godown situated at Savarkundla. During the unloading process, a fire allegedly broke out due to sparks, resulting in the death of two workers as well as injuries to the tanker driver and the tenant of the godown, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. During investigation, statements of witnesses and family members of the deceased revealed that the applicants and other accused persons were allegedly involved in operating the business and arranging the unloading work. The applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the respective courts and thereafter approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the FIR, however, the said proceedings were withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 21.09.2009 and the applicants thereafter preferred an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge, contending inter alia that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as true, the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not made out and at the most the allegations disclose an offence of rash or negligent act punishable under Section 304A IPC or Section 286 IPC. The said discharge application below Exh.8 in Sessions Case No. 03 of 2020 (Old Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012) came to be rejected by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Savarkundla, which has given rise to the present proceedings.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Savarkundla below Exh.8 in Sessions Case No.03 of 2020 (Old Sessions Case No.10 of 2012) is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. It was contended that the learned trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants as well as the judgments relied upon while rejecting the discharge application. Learned advocate further submitted that, even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, inasmuch as there is no material indicating any voluntary act, intention or knowledge attributable to the applicants so as to constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, at the highest, the unfortunate incident may amount to an accident arising out of negligence. It was further submitted that, in light of the prosecution having itself invoked Section 286 IPC, the case would at the most fall within the ambit of negligent conduct with respect to inflammable substances or Section 304A IPC. Learned advocate further submitted that the offence under Section 407 IPC is also not made out against the applicants, as the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC. Therefore, it is submitted that the application may be allowed.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State opposed the application and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge application after considering the material collected during investigation. It was contended that sufficient prima facie evidence is available on record showing the involvement of the applicants in the illegal storage, transportation and handling of highly inflammable material without following requisite safety measures, which resulted in the unfortunate incident causing loss of human lives. It was therefore submitted that the charges have been rightly framed and no interference is warranted.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the sides and upon perusal of the nature of the allegations as well as the charge-sheet material, it appears that the charge-sheet has been filed inter alia for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it stands, there is no material indicating any mens rea, intention or knowledge on the part of the applicants for commission of the alleged offence. There is also no material to suggest that the applicants had voluntarily committed any act with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. A plain reading of Section 304 IPC makes it clear that, for attracting the said provision, there must exist either an intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. Section 304 IPC reads as under:
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined murder.-- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
8. In the present case, no such intention or knowledge is prima facie discernible from the material collected during investigation and, therefore, the question of applicability of Section 304 IPC does not arise.
9. On the contrary, even if the allegations made by the prosecution are accepted in toto, the same clearly reveal that the prosecution itself has filed the charge-sheet under Section 286 IPC, which pertains to negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances. Section 286 IPC reads as under:
"286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance.-- Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
10. Upon perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that the allegation against the accused persons is that highly inflammable material was transported and stored without Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined requisite authorization, licence or safety measures and that, during the process of transferring the petroleum product into barrels at the godown, fire erupted due to sparks, resulting in the unfortunate incident. Thus, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as true, at the highest the allegations disclose negligent handling and transportation of inflammable substances without observing necessary safety norms. Such allegations may constitute negligence on the part of the accused persons, but do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 304 IPC.
11. In this context, reference deserves to be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 166 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the distinction between culpable homicide and negligent acts involving combustible substances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case, set aside the conviction under Section 304A IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 285 IPC.
12. Considering the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the acts alleged against the applicants, at the highest, may amount to negligent conduct in relation to inflammable substances for which specific provisions have been enacted under Sections 285 and 286 IPC. However, in absence of any intention or knowledge attributable to the applicants, no offence punishable under Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Section 304 IPC is made out.
13. It is a settled principle of law that where two views are possible on the basis of the material available on record, the view favouring the accused must be adopted at the stage of discharge. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision in Ygesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 GLH 596.
14. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer to relevant provisions of law, which are quoted hereunder:-
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
--
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
15. Before Section 304 can be invoked, the following ingredients must be satisfied;
"(i) the death of the person must have been caused;
(ii) such death must have been caused by the act of the accused by causing bodily injury;
(iii) there must be an intention on the part of the accused
(a) to cause death: or
(b) to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death (Part I);
(iv) there must be knowledge on the part of the accused that the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined bodily injury is such that it is likely to cause death (Part II)."
16. In this regard, reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 479.
17. Resultantly, the revision application is partly allowed. The applicants-accused are discharged from the charge of offence under Section 304 of IPC, however, the applicants-accused must stand to trial for the offence punishable under Section 407, 286 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, stands vacated.
18. Since the applicant is discharged from the offence under Section 304 of IPC only, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to return the record to the Court of competent jurisdiction to proceed further. It is clarified that these reasons are tentative in nature and this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter or allegations and the counter-allegations leveled by respective parties.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:11:51 IST 2026