Gujarat High Court

Rajendrakumar Pravinchandra Dasadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.RA/661/2025                                         CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                                                               Reserved On   : 27.06.2025
                                                                               Pronounced On : 11/07/2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 661 of 2025


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                         Yes             No
                                                                                             ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                     RAJENDRAKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA DASADIYA
                                                     Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MS. JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the respondent -

State.

2. The present revision application has been preferred by the

present applicant under Section 438 read with Section

442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (In

short "BNSS Act") directed against the order passed by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.283 of 2022,

rejecting the discharge application of the present

applicant vide Exhibit-308 dated 09.04.2025. With the

consent of the parties, the matter has been taken for the

final hearing.

3. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unawala

assisted by learned advocate Mr. R. R. Dholakia for the

applicant. It is submitted by him that one FIR came to be

registered before the Dhanduka Police Station, Dist.:

Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 308, 328, 284, 201, 202, 118, 120(b), 114 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 65(a), 67(1)(a),

79, 81 and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act being C.R.

No.11192018220218 of 2022. Further, it is submitted that

the present applicant has been shown as accused no.23 in

the chargesheet. Further, it is submitted that the present

applicant is the Manager of one M/s. Amos Corporation

company engaged in the business of carrying out the job

work of bottling Methyl alcohol. Looking to the entire

chargesheet, the allegation made against the present

applicant i.e. Manager of M/s. Amos Corporation about

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

theft of Methyl was committed by the accused no.15 -

Jayesh Khavadiya and his accomplishments from the M/s.

Amos Corporation and after that, this spurious liquor was

made by accused no.15 and his known person and then,

sold out. There is no iota of evidence against the present

applicant - accused that he made for spurious liquor and

sold it to other persons in collusion with the accused no.15

- Mr. Jayesh Khavadiya. Even co-accused Mr. Jayesh

Khavadiya in his statement recorded under Section 164 of

the Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate and admitted

that the entire responsibility of stolen Methyl, preparing

liquor, and selling it and as per the case of the

prosecution, the stock of Methyl was short and there was

an email from the company about the shortage of stock

and mainly on this ground, the present applicant was

arraigned as an accused.

4. Further, it is submitted that the co-accused, i.e., Directors

of the M/s. Amos Corporation has been discharged by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the revision application

(against the order passed by the Sub-ordinate Court)

No.1087 of 2024 along with other matters by Judgment

dated 22.01.2025. The Co-ordinate Bench has discharged

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

the Directors of the accused persons for the charges

punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Further, it was submitted that the present applicants are

similarly situated as per the directors of the M/s. Amos

Corporation and the theft of the Methyl alcohol was stolen

by the accused - Jayesh Khavadiya. So, the present

applicant - accused has no knowledge or intention to

commit this kind of offence and from the chargesheet

papers, it is nowhere establishes that the present

applicant has any knowledge or intention to commit such

an offence. Hence, considering this, present revision

application has been allowed.

6. Further, it was submitted that the present applicant be

discharged from offence punishable under Section 304 of

the IPC and Section 308 of the IPC. Further, learned

Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Sessions

Court has rejected the discharge application only on the

ground that the involvement of the present applicant was

found prima facie in collusion of offence and knowingly

permitted the co-accused person to remove huge quantity

of Methyl alcohol which was used for making spurious

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

liquor and thereafter, by selling the said spurious liquor,

14 persons died and 60 got injured and further, it was

observed that the present applicant is Manager of the

company who has direct control over the quantity of

Methyl stored in the company and the Directors who are

discharged by the High Court was directors of the

company and the applicability of Section 304 of the IPC

has been discussed and as the present applicant is

Manager and has a direct control over the Methyl stored

in the company, only on this fact that the present

applicant has not been said to be similarly situated as

Director of the company but the findings recorded by the

learned Sessions Court is prima facie found substance

with the chargesheet papers. Hence, the present revision

application is required to be allowed and the present

applicant is discharged from the offence punishable under

Section 304 of the IPC and 308 of the IPC.

7. On the other hand, Learned APP Mr. Hardik A. Patel has

vehemently opposed and submitted that there is prima

facie evidence has been found against the present

applicant. Further, the Directors of the M/s. Amos

Corporation who have been discharged by the Co-ordinate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

Bench of this Court is concerned, their role and the role

attributed to the applicant is different. Directors does not

have direct control over the stock of the Methyl alcohol

but the present applicant who is Manager, has a direct

control as per the statement of the witnesses.

8. Further, it was submitted that the prosecution has

recorded the statement of one Mr. Prasant Shah, who is

an employee of the M/s. Amos Corporation in the Account

Department and as per his statement, the present

applicant is a marketing manager, who always talked with

accused no.15 - Jayesh Khavadiya and by contacting him,

he was called for all the details of the stock of the Methyl

alcohol and subsequently, prepared bill and thereafter, he

emailed to the accused - Jayesh Khavadiya and thereafter,

Jayesh Khavadiya taken out print out and prepared challan

and thereafter, Jayesh Khavadiya put his signature.

Further, it is submitted that another witness - Lagdhirbhai

Solanki's statement has been recorded who is Assistant

Manager in Finar Company Ltd. and the Finar Company

Ltd. has given a packing job of this Methyl to M/s. Amos

Corporation and as per his statement, when the stock was

sent by M/s. Amos Corporation by packing Methyl alcohol

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

and in the June, 2020 till 2022, they found some deficiency

in the stock and it was also been conveyed to the M/s.

Amos Corporation. It was submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the present applicant is also knowing this

fact that the Methyl is very dangerous chemical and it

should be taken care while packing and it is the duty of

the present applicant to see that the exact quantity is to

be reached to Finar company Ltd. and he has not taken

due care and it was within his knowledge that the said

Methyl alcohol was stolen by the co-accused - Jayesh

Khavadiya in spite of the fact that he has not taken due

care and hence, there is prima facie found against the

present applicant. So, the present revision application is

required to be rejected.

9. So far as the law regarding the scope of the revision,

considering an application filed under Section 397 of the

Cr.P.C against the order passed in application under

Section 227 of the Cr.P.C is now well settled and the same

does not require any reiteration to be considered by this

Court. At this stage, there is material on record to

prosecute the applicant for the offence in question.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

10. Applicants are sought to be prosecuted for an offence

culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section

299 of the IPC and it is an admitted position that the

present applicants are not attributed to any positive act

which had resulted into the death of the deceased person.

At the most, what is alleged against the applicants is their

inaction in ensuring the stock of Methyl stored in the go-

down of the company was not misused.

11. Heard the respective parties and perused the judgment on

record and investigating papers as well as the statement

recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C here-in-above.

This court does not intend to discuss the matter on

findings in detail. It is suffice to note that the following

aspects has been considered for deciding this application.

i. The Court has considered the statement made on behalf of

the applicant and the State as well as the statement of the

co-accused - Jayeshbhai before the investigating officer as

well as before the Judicial officer.

ii. All the statement of the Jayeshbhai - coaccused before the

investigating officer and the statement under Section 164

of the Cr.P.C, co-accused has sold 600 Ltrs. of Methyl

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

alcohol to the other accused persons for consideration of

Rs.41,500/- before that, he has also sent a small quantity

of Methyl alcohol to the co-accused and thereafter, this

material to the destination spot and handing over the

material and taking the cash has been done by the co-

accused - Jayeshbhai and it appears from the statement

under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C of the co-accused

Jayeshbhai.

12. So far as the applicant is concerned, it prima facie

appears to the Court that the present applicant - accused

is a marketing manager and the present applicant has not

taken active role in the commission of the said offence.

13. Further, from the chargesheet paper, it is an admitted

position that the present applicant is a marketing

manager of the M/s. Amos Corporation and only the

statement of one Mr.Prashant Shah who is Accountant in

the M/s. Amos Corporation in the business of chemical

products with other company and the chemicals came in

the barrel by the Finar company and the company used to

fill 2.5 Ltrs bottles subsequently, they returned to Finar

Company and this majority of work has been done by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

co-accused - Jayeshbhai and normally, no person from the

M/s. Amos Corporation is visiting Pipalaj plant. Only

Rajendrabhai the present applicant was in contact with

Jayeshbhai and called for all the details of the stocks and

thereafter, they prepared the bill and sent through e-mail

to Mr. Jayeshbhai and subsequently, Jayeshbhai used to

take out the print of the bill and thereafter, he put a

signature and transported the said material and the

another statement of one - Mr. Lagdhirbhai Solanki who is

an employee of Finar Company Ltd. And as per his

statement, when they sent the chemicals from the

company in any other company for the job work, at that

time, they will make an entry in the outward register and

material were reached to the said company. They will

obtain signature relating the receipt of the material and

after the job is completed, the said material will again

returned to the Finar Company Ltd. and they will also

make the entry in the inward register and they will put

into their storeroom and if any difference is found in the

quantity, they will used to inform the concerned company

through email and when they sent the Methyl alcohol to

M/s. Amos Corporation, in June, 2020, three times there

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

was found some discrepancies in the quantity of the

Methyl chemical and it was conveyed to the present

applicant. Except this, there is no other evidence in the

charge sheet against the present applicant.

14. So, from the statement of these two witnesses, it cannot

be said prima facie from the material produced by the

investigating agency that the present applicant has any

knowledge regarding this that the co-accused Mr.

Jayeshbhai has stolen the Methyl alcohol from the

company and sold it to other accused persons.

15. In this regard, it is profitable to perusal of the observation

made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pankajbhai

Kantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra):

"8. Section 304 of the IPC reads as under:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."

8.1 The first part of the Section 304 deals with an intention on part of the accused of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Whereas, the second part of the Section deals with the knowledge on part of the accused that the act attributed to him may cause death or may cause an injury which may result into death.

8.2 The material available on record is absolutely silent so far as it relates to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and for that matter, it does not even appear to be the case of prosecution that the applicants herein had committed the act alleged on their part with an intention of causing death or a bodily injury which may result into death. Therefore, what is required to be examined is as to whether the act of inaction alleged against the present applicants would fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

9. From the material available on record it appears that the co-accused Jayesh Khavadiya had been appointed as a labour contractor in the godown of the company where the stock of methyl alcohol was stored and the necessary naukarnama had also been issued in his favour by the company. Therefore, it was the primary duty of the said Jayesh Khavadiya to see that the stock of methyl alcohol was properly maintained and it was also his duty to see that the pilferage of the stock of methyl alcohol was prevented. The said Jayesh Khavadiya in his statement recorded under Section 164 of IPC has admitted his guilt that he had stolen 600 liters of methyl alcohol, out of the stock stored at the premises of the company and had sold it to the other

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

co- accused and had also received the amount of Rs.41,500/- in return for the same. There is nothing on record to indicate that either the company or its Directors had any reason to believe that the said Jayesh Khavadiya would indulge into any such activity. The record is also absolutely silent as regards the said Jayesh Khavadia having indulged into such activity in past or any such incident having taken place in the past prior to the present incident.

10. Under the circumstances, the present applicants being the Directors of the Company cannot be expected to believe that any such incident may take place. Therefore, there is no reason for the applicants to have knowledge to the effect that methyl alcohol would be stolen from the facility of the company, the stolen stuff would be used for the preparation of spurious liquor, spurious liquor so prepared would be consumed by the victims and such consumption would result into loss of human lives. It would be too far fetched a scenario to attribute knowledge to the present applicants that methyl alcohol stored in the premises of the company would be stolen and supplied to the persons involved in the activity of preparation of spurious liquor, those persons would use it for the preparation of spurious liquor, the persons who died because of consumption of such liquor, would consume spurious liquor and die.

11. It is sought to be argued on behalf of the prosecution that the applicants herein being the Directors of the company had visited the premises where the stock of methyl alcohol was stored. The material available on record indicates that not all the Directors had visited the premises and only one

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

Director had visited the same. Even if it is assumed that all the Directors had visited the premises, the applicants herein would not gain any knowledge of an intention on the part of the co-accused Jayesh Khavadiya, merely by visiting the premises of the company. There is no material, whatsoever, available on record to indicate that the applicants herein were aware about the intention on part of the said Jayesh Khavadiya and were also aware of his activities and despite that knowledge, had connived at his activities.

16. The aspect of vicarious liability on part of the present applicants being the Directors of company is also sought to be pressed into service by the prosecution. Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of [Sanjay Dutt and Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana] has observed in para Nos.11 and 12.

"11. It appears that the Courts below proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the three appellants herein being responsible officers of the company are liable for the alleged offence. While a company may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not automatic. It depends on specific circumstances, particularly the interplay between the director's personal actions and the company's responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such director personally acted in a manner that directly connects their conduct to the company's liability. Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties. Thus, where the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. There has to be a specific act attributed to the director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.

12. At the same time, wherever by a legal fiction the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned. When it comes to penal provisions, vicarious liability of the managing director and director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Even where such provision for fastening vicarious liability exists, it does not mean that any and all directors of the company would be automatically liable for any contravention of such statute. Vicarious Liability would arise only if there are specific and substantiated allegations attributing a particular role or conduct to such director, sufficient enough to attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability and by extension the offence itself."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/661/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

16. Considering this, the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court, even there is no iota of evidence is found that

the present applicant has taken any knowledge regarding

the co-accused - Jayeshbhai has stolen the Methyl and

subsequently, sold to the other co-accused persons by

getting consideration. Hence, having regard to the

aforesaid discussion, there is no material available on

record for framing the charge against the present

applicant for an offence punishable under Section 304 of