STATE OF HARYANA versus RAJESH AGGARWAL & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 20-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
RAJESH AGGARWAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2218 of 2011)
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:  s.482 – Quashing of FIR –
Prosecution case was that a blast took place in a factory resulting
in death of seven persons and criminal proceedings were initiated
against the respondents being the persons responsible for the affairs
and running of the factory for commission of offence punishable
under s.302 IPC – Respondents sought quashing of FIR – High
Court partly allowed the petition and altered the charge to s.304A
IPC – On State’s appeal, held: The reasoning and the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court for altering the charge for the offence
from s.302 to s.304-A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted with –
Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial within one year –
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304A.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The trial in the case must set in motion and conclude
in terms of the direction of the High Court for deciding as to
whether any case under Section 304-A IPC has been made out
against the respondents or not and, if so, what punishment can
be imposed on them for commission of such offence, and if not,
then why.  Due to pendency of this litigation and the stay operating,
the trial in the case remained stayed for all these years. The
Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial of the respondents’
case in question, is directed to ensure that the trial is completed
on merits within one year from the date of this order strictly in
accordance with law.  Depending upon the evidence adduced by
the prosecution, the Sessions Judge has ample power to alter/
amend/add any charge by taking recourse to powers under Section
216 of the Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the High Court altering the
charge at this stage. [Paras 13-16]  [927-E-G; 928-A-B]
925
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2218 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2006 of the High Court
of   Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 413 of
2001.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Niraj Jha, Vinod
Sharma, Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
State of Haryana against the final judgment and order dated 27.11.2006
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Revision No.413 of 2001 whereby the High Court partly allowed the
petition filed by the respondents herein and altered the charge framed
against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to that under Section
304-A IPC.
2.
Few facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposal of the
appeal, which involves a short point.
3.
There is a private limited company called “M/s Kee Pharma
Private Limited” at Gurgaon (Haryana). This company is engaged in
the business of manufacture of chemical drugs in their factory at Gurgaon.
4.
The respondents are said to be the shareholders/Directors of
the Company and are responsible for the day-to-day affairs and working
of the Company and its factory.
5.
On 27.06.1996, a blast occurred in the factory premises and
as a result of which smoke spread in the entire factory. When the blast
occurred, 45 workers were present in the factory.  They ran here and
there for their safety. This resulted in stampede in the factory area causing
death of seven workers.
6.
This led to registration of FIR No.694 of 1996 on 27.06.1996
against the respondents in PS Sadar, Gurgaon at the instance of some of
the workers.  It was registered against the respondents being the persons
responsible for the affairs and running of the Company and its factory
for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
7.
The respondents,  questioning the legality of  the FIR registered
against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and sought its quashing.
8.
By impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the petition
and altered the charge framed against the respondents for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A IPC.
9.
The State fel

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