LexKESHUB MAHINDRA versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-11 KESHUB MAHINDRA A v. STATE OF M.P. SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 (AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] B Criminal Law : Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482. Criminal Proceedings-Quashing of-Bhopal Gas Tragedy-Leakage c of highly toxic MIC gas from storage tank of plant resulting in huge loss of human lives-Permanent/temporary injuries or total/pa1tial disablement and loss of cattle lives-Charges framed against personnel who handle plant substantively under Sec. 304 Part II, 324 324 and 429 !PC r/w. S. 3~ /PC-According to Expert Committee Report escape of gas on account of D defective plant and lack and supervision by accused led to accident-Held: material available on record prima facie did not connect accused with offences with which they were charged-Hence, these charges quashed and set asid~However, prima f acie charge under S. 304-A !PC made out:-Since originally case registered under S. 304-A, charges could be framed there- w1der-T1ial Court, could also consider on material led by prosecution whether charges could be franted under Ss. 336, 337 and 338 /PC. E Penal Code, 1860: Sections 299 and 304 Part II-Ingredients of-Accused must have done an act which caused death of a person with knowledge that by such act he was likely to cause death. Sections 324 and 326-Ingredients and applicability of-Accused must commit act with knowledge that by such act he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to victim. Sections 425 and 429-Ingredients and applicability of S. 429-/f com- mission of 'mischief as defined in S. 425 by accused was not made out S. 429 could not be invoked. Constitution of India, 1950 : Anicle 142. 285 F G H A. B 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. Crimi11al Proceedings-Quashing of-Charges framed against accused quashed by Supreme Court as offences alleged not prima facie made out-However, Supreme Cowt in exercise of power under A1ticle 142 could direct framing of charge for another offence under which case was initially registered and as regards to which counsel for pmties addressed the Cowt with view to avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. A grim tragedy of unprecedented nature occu17"ed on the f atefu.l 11ight when a ltigltly dangerous and to;xic gas called MIC escaped from a tank from the factory belonging to accused No. 12-Union Carbide India Limited resulting in huge loss of human lives, permanent/temporary injwies or C total/pa1tial disablement and loss of cattle lives. This ghastly tragedy had come to be known as 'Bhopal Gas Tragedy'. According to the Expe1t Committee Repolt the lethal gas MIC escaped both on account of defective plant which was operated under the control of the D appellants-Accused and their lack of supe1vision which led to the accident. Charges were framed against the appellants-Accused who were actually handling the Pla1tt (accused Nos. 2 to 9 ), substantively under Section 304 Pa1t II, 324, 326 and 429 read with Section 35 of the India11 Penal Code,1860. Aggrieved by the aforesaid charges the appellant-accused moved Criminal Revision Applications before the High Co wt under Sections 397 and 382 of E the Oiminal Procedure Code, 1973, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. On behalf ofthe·appellants-accused it was contended that as per the chargesheet and supporting material there was no prim a f acie case that the accused were guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A, 324, 326 and F 429 read with Section 35 of the IPC; that there was no proximate act of the negligence on the part of the accused which had resulted in the accidental tragedy; that none of !he accused could be held criminally liable for the accident; and that the charges framed against the accused were required to be quashed. G On behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that there was ample material produced by the prosecution in support of the chargesheet; that the Expert Committee Report had clearly indicated the causes of the accident and the defects found in the running of the plant at the relevant time; and that there was sufficient material to prim a f acie indicate that H the accused were liable to be prosecuted. \> KESHUB MAHINDRA v. STATE 2B7 Allowing the appeal in part, this Court HELD : 1. It is clear from Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the High Court is called upon to quash the ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.