Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from the collapse of a multi-storey building named 'Tariq Garden' in Mahad, Raigad on 24 August 2020, resulting in 16 deaths and several injuries. The prosecution alleged that the building collapsed within six years of construction due to gross negligence and illegal omission by all stakeholders. Three applicants, Yunus Razzak Shaikh (son of the landowner), Irfan Husain Miyan Qazi (cousin of the developer), and Bahubali Tatyaso Dhamane (an engineer), filed revision applications against the rejection of their discharge applications by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon. The applicants argued that there was no contractual relationship or professional commitment linking them to the construction, and that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 226 CrPC. The court examined the charge-sheet material, including statements of witnesses and documents, and found prima facie evidence of their involvement: Yunus Shaikh signed agreements as a witness, Irfan Qazi was present at the site and involved in financial transactions, and Bahubali Dhamane acted as an RCC consultant. The court held that at the stage of framing charge, the court need only see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. The court also directed the trial court to comply with Section 226 CrPC before framing charge. The revision applications were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with framing of charge after compliance with Section 226 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Standard of Proof - Sections 227, 226 CrPC - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. The trial court's order rejecting discharge was upheld as there was prima facie material showing involvement of the applicants in the construction and collapse. (Paras 1-76)
B) Indian Penal Code - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 IPC - Building Collapse - The prosecution alleged that the accused acted with gross negligence and illegal omission leading to death of 16 persons. The court held that at the stage of framing charge, it is not necessary to establish contractual relationship; the role of each accused as per charge-sheet material is sufficient. (Paras 4-76)
C) Criminal Procedure - Opening of Case - Section 226 CrPC - The grievance about non-compliance of Section 226 was not upheld as the trial court had not yet framed charge and the prosecution had not opened the case. The court directed the trial court to comply with Section 226 before framing charge. (Para 6, 76)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge applications of the accused on the ground that there was no contractual relationship or professional commitment supported by documents, and whether the prosecution failed to comply with Section 226 CrPC.
Final Decision
The revision applications are dismissed. The trial court is directed to comply with Section 226 CrPC before framing charge and then proceed with framing of charge in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Prima facie case for framing charge
- contractual relationship not essential for criminal liability
- illegal omission as offence
- standard of proof at charge stage
- Section 226 CrPC compliance
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (6) 1302
Criminal Revision Application No.107 of 2023, Criminal Revision Application No.66 of 2023, Criminal Revision Application No.144 of 2024
Mr. Abid Mulani, Mr. Ashish P. Agarkar, Mr. Majeed Memon, Mr. Tapish Jain, Mr. Mateen Qureshi, Mr. Kishan Chaudhari, Mr. S.M.M.Owais T. Jahagirdar, Mr. Sultan Khan, Mr. Amin Solkar, Mr. Umang Shah, Mr. A.D. Kamkhedkar
Yunus Razzak Shaikh, Irfan Husain Miyan Qazi, Bahubali Tatyaso Dhamane
The State of Maharashtra, Suhas Sitaram Kamble (First Informant)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision applications against rejection of discharge applications in a building collapse case resulting in 16 deaths.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought discharge from the criminal case and setting aside of the trial court's order rejecting their discharge applications.
Filing Reason
The applicants claimed there was no contractual relationship or professional commitment linking them to the construction, and the prosecution failed to comply with Section 226 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon rejected the discharge applications of the applicants by orders dated 15 February 2023 and 2 September 2023.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge applications on the ground that there was no contractual relationship or professional commitment.
Whether the prosecution's failure to open the case under Section 226 CrPC vitiates the proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that there is no document showing their contractual or professional involvement in the construction, and they have been implicated merely because of their relationship with the owner or developer.
The prosecution argued that the charge-sheet material, including witness statements, shows active participation of the applicants in the construction and financial transactions, establishing a prima facie case.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously but only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The existence of a contractual relationship or professional commitment is not a prerequisite for criminal liability; the role of the accused as per the charge-sheet material is sufficient to frame charges.
Judgment Excerpts
These Revisions are filed by Accused on the premise that there is no ‘contractual relationship’ or there is no ‘professional commitment’ supported by documents which is the foundation for prosecuting them and if it is so, they cannot be charged.
It is true that the legislators have included not only an act within the meaning of the term as an ‘offence’ but also an ‘illegal omission’.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon rejected their Applications by two separate orders dated 15th February 2023 and 2nd September 2023.
Procedural History
The building collapsed on 24 August 2020. A complaint was lodged by Suhas Sitaram Kamble, Junior Engineer of Mahad Municipal Council. After investigation, charge-sheets were filed. The applicants filed discharge applications which were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon on 15 February 2023 and 2 September 2023. The applicants then filed the present revision applications before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120-B, 471, 201, 337, 338, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 226, 227
