Shyam Sunder Sharma And Another vs State
2001 Latest Caselaw 1291 Del

ORDER

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Admit.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 27.2.2001 and 9.4.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioners herein.

3. It is contended before me on behalf of the petitioners that on the facts and circumstances of this case, no charge can be sustained as the NOC issued by the 1st petitioner was for the period from 1st April, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 vide letter dated 28th September, 1995 while the second petitioner issued NOC for the period from 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997 vide letter dated 25th September, 1996 and that the occurrence, which resulted in the death of 59 persons, took place on 13th June, 1997. He submits that none of the acts of the petitioners are proximate enough to bring them within the mischief of Section 304-A IPC.

4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the CBI, that the petitioners are liable for their acts which resulted in license being issued by the competent authority and, therefore, the chain of events was such which brings the petitioners within the mischief of Section 304-A IRC. Their actions are proximate enough to the cause of the incident.

5. I have given my careful consideration. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proximity of actions causing the death of 59 persons in the tragedy was the short-circuiting of the transformer, spilling of the oil and consequent fire and smoke. He submits that by no stretch of imagination can the petitioners be held for doing any of those acts. Therefore, to charge them under Section 304-A IPC read with Section 36 IPC would not be proper. What has been missed by the learned counsel; while making this submission before me, is that the petitioners were responsible for issuing the No Objection Certificate which required of them under the Rules to ensure, after inspection, that the auditorium was safe as per rules, for persons ho may use it. This, if it had been done, would ensure safety of those visiting or using the auditorium in the event of mishap of the nature that has occurred. There is material on record to show large scale deviations resulting in the blocking of gangways, exit doors, erection of walls and placing of exhaust fans which sucked smoke into the hall, creating conditions in the auditorium which proved fatal, fire or smoke was not the only cause. The petitioners issued No Objections Certificates from September to September when they were required to give their opinion in March to the licensing authority enabling it to renew the same. the practice adopted by the petitioners of issuing No Objections Certificate in September created a condition whereby the licensing authority gave temporary permits on expiry on 31st March of the year concerned. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is no nexus or that the proximity to the incident, as required under Section 304-A IPC, is not made out. Learned counsel, while directing his attention only to the fire caused due to short-circuit, has missed the larger aspect of the matter where statutory authorities are required to act in the discharge of their functions to ensure proper compliance of rules and regulations, framed to safeguard against any harm to the public using the facilities. In this case, the petitioner gave no objection certificate and certified the Gas Chamber to be safe for public use.

6. It is not open to the court at this stage to evaluate the material to brig home the guilt of the accused. it is sufficient if the material on record supports a friable case. In this case, from what has been discussed above, there is no doubt that there is sufficient material collected by the prosecution and placed before the court justifying the petitioners being put on trial.

7. At the fag end of the case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that other accused have challenged the charge framed against them which has been pending for orders since May, 2001 before another bench of this Court and that no decision should be rendered before the decision is given in those cases. I find no substance in this argument. The reasoning of the learned counsel is ill-founded. Framing of charge is an exercise conducted against each accused based on the material available before the court against that accused. it is of no consequence what orders are passed in cases of the other accused for each case is decided on its own facts.

8. In view of what has been stated above, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 340 of 2001 is dismissed.