BHALCHANDRA ALIAS BAPU & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 11-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

766 
BHALCHANDRA alias BAPU & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
April 11, 1968 
[M. IIIDAYATULLAH, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ss. 304A and 331--Storage of e:t-
pl01ives of higher degree-Explosion-Whether licensus liable criminally. 
In an explosion which took place, the persons who were working in 
the factory of the appellants where crackers were being manufactured 
died or were injured. 
The appellants were convicted under ss. 304A 
and 337 I.P.C. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that 
criminal liability could not be imposed upon them under ss. 304A and 
337 as it had not been established that the deaths cir injuries caused were 
the direct result of any rash or negligent act on the part of the appellants 
or that any such act had been proved which was the proximate and effi-
cient cause of the explosion without the intervention of another's 
negligence. 
· 
HEID : The appellants were rightly convicted. [773 CJ 
Although there was no direct evidence of the immediate cause of the 
eitplosion but the explosives the possession of which was 
prohibited 
under the notifications issued undel' the Indian Explosives Act were 
found in the shops or the premises where the appellants carried on their 
business and the substances which were of highly hazardous· and dangerous 
nature were apparently being used in the manufacture of. the fire works, 
since thev wel'e found at the scene of the explosion. 
These explosives 
had sensitive composition and even friction or percussion could 
came 
Ol<plosion. 
In the factory itself where the explosion took place the per• 
sons who were employed were mostly women who brought their small 
children with them and young children below the age of 18 had been 
employed in the manufacture of fire works. It became therefc/re, all the 
more incumbent on all appellants to have completely avoided the use of 
highly sensitive compositions. 
The appellants had, undoubtedly display-
ed a high degree of negligence by allowing or causing to be used dan-
gerous and prohibited compositions and substances which must he held 
to have bees the efficient cause of the explosion. [771 A.C; 773 C] 
Rustom Sharior Irani v. State of Maharashtra. 
Cr. A. No. 72165; 
Balachandra Waman Pathe v. The State of Maharashtra, Cr. A. 62 of 
1965 decided on 20-11-1967, followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Regina v. David Dant., 169 English Reports (C.C.) 
1517; Rex v. 
G 
Pittwood .. (1902) 19 T.L.R. 37, applied. 
Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtro. 
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 622; Suleman Rahiman Mulani & 'Another v. The State 
of Maharashtra Cr. A. 50 of 1965 decided on 1-12-1967, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
193 of 1965. 
H 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 19, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revi-
sion Applications Nos. 193 and 194 of 1965. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
H 
BALCHANDRA v. STATE (Grover, J.) 
767 
K. Hingorani and N. H. Hingorani, for the appellants. 
P. K. Chatterjee and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave in whic~ the 
main question for decision is whether the appellants were ng~tly 
convicted for offences under ss. 304A and 337 of the Indian 
Penal Code. 
The facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellants held 
licences under the Indian Explosives Act 1884, hereinafter called 
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to manufacture, possess 
and seli fire works and gun-powder not exceeding 200 pounds and 
to possess and sell safety fuses. 
It appears that the appellants 
had a factory for manufacturing explosives in a house on Shad 
Road in Latur town. 
It is said that an explosion occurred in 
that place on May 5, 1962 at about 12 O'clock as a result of 
which 11 persons died and 7 persons were injured. The appel-
lants along with one B. G. Kamble were tried for offences under 
the various provisions of the Act and the Rules as also for 
offences under ss. 304A and 337 of the Code. The trial judge 
acquitted B. G. Kamble but convicted the appellants 'of the 
var10us charges framed against them 
and imposed fine for 
offences under the provisions of the Act and awarded a sentence 
of one year under s. 3-04A and three months under s. 337 of the 
Indian Penal Code with. a direction that they were to run con-
currently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the 
ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.