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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
