LexKURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMMEDALI RANGWALLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
622 KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMMEDALI RANGWALLA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA December 15, 1964 (K. N. WANCHOO AND 1. R. MUDHOLKAR, 11.] Rash and negligent act-To be punishable ii mU3t be proximal• cawe of death-Lighting fire and storage of combustible material again.ft conditions of license--Danger to human life caused thereby whetlwr 'probable'-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 304A and 285. The appellant was the manager and working partner of a firm which manufactured paints and varnish. The factory was licensed by the Bom- bay Municipality on certain conditions to manufacture paints involving a cold proces.. and to store certain specified quantities of turpentine, var- nish and paint. The factory did not have a license for manufacturing wet paints but nevertheless manufactured them. Four burners were used in the factory for the purpose of melting rosin or bitumen by beating them in barrels and adding turpentine thereto after the temperature cooled down to a certain degree. While this unlicensed process was going on froth overflowed out of the barrel and because of beat varnish and turpentine, which were stored at a short distanoe caught fire, a.$ a result of which seven workmen died. The appellant was prooecuted and convicted under ss. 304A and 285 of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal before the High Court having been summarily dismis..ed be came to the Supreme Court by spedal leave. HELD : (i) The app·allant was not guilty under s. 304A. The mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out. What s. 304A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or n~gligent act and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. From the facts of the present case it appeared that the direct and proximate cause of the fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of one of the workmen in pouring !he turpen- tine too early and not the appellant's act in allowing the burners to bum in the particular room. [626 E-G] Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, (1902) IV Born. L.R. 679, relied on. (ii) The appellant was however guilty under s. 285 of the Penal Code inasmuch he knowingly and negligently omitted to take such , order with the fire and combustible matter in his possession as was suffi- cient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire and combustible matter. His manufacture of wet paints was without the required licence; the fire in question was not authorised as required by the general conditions of his licence, and it was lighted in the proximity of turpentine and varnish against the special conditions of his licence. The mere fact that a similar accident had never taken place before in the same conditions did not prove that the danger to human life caused there- by was not 'probable'. (629 D-F] A B c D E F G H KURBAN HUSSEIN v. STATE (Wanchoo, /.) 623 A CIVII. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 8, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1963. B S. T. Desai, I. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder c Narain, for the appellant. S. G. Patwardhan, B. R. G. K. Achar, for R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This appeal by special leave against the judg- ment of the Bombay High Court raises questions regarding the inter- pretation of s. 304-A and s. 285 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are not now in dispute and may be briefly set out as found by the courts below. The appellant along with three partners is 0 the owner of a factory styled as Carbon Dry Colour Works which manufactures paints and varnish. The factory was licensed by the Bombay Municipality in the year 1953 to manufacture paints involving a cold process and was located at 79 / 81 Jail Road, Dongri. The factory was also licensed to store 455 litres of tur. pentine, 455 litres of varnish and 14000 gallons of paint. The E licence was issued subject to certain conditions to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.