Sushil Ansal Vs. State Through CBI
|
Head Note
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 (8) , Section 313 , Section 319 , Section 342 , Section 357 (5) , Section 464 , Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 292 , Section 304 , Section 304-A , Section 307 , Section 337 , Section 338 , Section 36 , Section 365 , Section 52 , Section 79
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 12, 14, 5A - Negligence causing death - Conviction - Sustainability - Appeals before HC - HC on reappraisal of evidence adduced at trial, acquitted five of appellants before it while upholding convictions of rest with modification of nature of offence - Hence instant appeals - Held, causa causans for death of 59 persons was their inability to quickly exit from balcony area for reasons Court already indicated - Even when repairs carried out by accused no. 11 and 9 might have been found to be unsatisfactory for reasons given by Trial Court and HC, which SC has affirmed, fire resulting from such poor repair was no more than causa sine qua non for deaths and, therefore, did not constitute an offence punishable u/s. 304A of IPC - Besides, negligence of occupiers of cinema having intervened between negligence of these two officials of DVB and deaths that occurred in incident, causal connection between deaths and act of shabby repair of installation of DVB transformer was not established directly - Conviction of these two appellants u/s. 304A of IPC could not, therefore, be sustained - That would, however, not affect their conviction u/ss. 337, 338 r/w s. 36 of IPC which would remain unaffected and was affirmed - Appeals disposed of.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 (8) , Section 313 , Section 319 , Section 342 , Section 357 (5) , Section 464 , Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 292 , Section 304 , Section 304-A , Section 307 , Section 337 , Section 338 , Section 36 , Section 365 , Section 52 , Section 79
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 12, 14, 5A - Culpable homicide - Procedure for misjoinder of charges u/s. 216 applied during the stage of trial, whereas AVUT was asking for remand of matter for retrial on fresh charge u/s. 304 Part II of IPC, which was not permissible under scheme of Code - Sec. 464 of CrPC deals with effect of omission to frame or absence of, or error in framing of charge and inter-alia provides that no finding, sentence or order by Court of competent jurisdiction should be deemed invalid merely on ground that no charge was framed or on ground of any error, omission or irregularity in charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in opinion of Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby - It was only if Court of appeal, confirmation or revision was of opinion that failure of justice has in fact been occasioned that it might in case of an omission to frame charge, order that charge be framed and that trial be recommenced from point immediately after framing of charge - Omission to frame charge was, therefore, by itself not enough for Court of appeal, confirmation or revision to direct framing of charge - To frame charge for new offence and remand matter back for accused to face prolonged trial again does not appear to us to be reasonable proposition - Independent of finding that Court recorded that fact situation case at hand does not suggest that accused Ansal brothers or any one of them, had knowledge that their acts of omission or commission was likely to cause death of any human being - Appeals disposed of.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 (8) , Section 313 , Section 319 , Section 342 , Section 357 (5) , Section 464 , Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 292 , Section 304 , Section 304-A , Section 307 , Section 337 , Section 338 , Section 36 , Section 365 , Section 52 , Section 79
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 12, 14, 5A - Negligence causing death - Acquattel - Sustainability - Was HC justified appeal filed by CBI - Held, charge framed against N.S. Chopra (A-6) and other Managers of Uphaar Cinema was one for commission of offence punishable u/s. 304 Part II r/w s. 36 of IPC - Allegation made against managers was that even when they were present on premises at time of incident, they had failed to either warn patrons or facilitate their escape - They instead fled scene despite knowledge that death was likely to be caused by their acts of omission and commission - Trial Court found charge proved and convicted and sentenced N.S. Chopra to undergo imprisonment for period of seven years besides fine and imprisonment for six months in default of payment - HC reversed that view qua N.S. Chopra and also R.K. Sharma A5/deceased - HC acquitted them of charges - There was no serious argument advanced by CBI for assailing correctness of view taken by HC in appeal and rightly so because HC has, in our opinion, taken fairly reasonable view which was in tune with evidence on record - No room for Courts interference even with this part of order passed by HC by which it acquitted administrative officers of MCD - Appeals disposed of.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 (8) , Section 313 , Section 319 , Section 342 , Section 357 (5) , Section 464 , Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 292 , Section 304 , Section 304-A , Section 307 , Section 337 , Section 338 , Section 36 , Section 365 , Section 52 , Section 79
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 12, 14, 5A - Negligence causing death - Conviction - Enhancement - Held, CBI did not urge that sentence awarded by HC to Ansals was inadequate - This was in contrast to grounds urged in memo of appeal by CBI where inadequacy of sentence was also assailed - In absence of any attempt leave alone serious one by State acting through CBI to question correctness of view taken by HC on quantum of sentence we would consider ground taken in memo of appeal to have been abandoned at Bar - Courts have to avoid such extremities in their approach especially where there was no legislative compulsion or statutory prescription in form of minimum sentence for an offence - Absence of uniform sentencing policy might often make any such endeavour difficult but Courts do, as they ought to, whatever was fair and reasonable difficulties, besetting that exercise notwithstanding - Appeals disposed of.
Topic(s)-