1 ndm 32 wp.2807.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2009 Ajay Champaklal Mehta and ors. ... PETITIONERS Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT -------- Mr. Sandeep P. i/b. Mr. Rahul Arote for Petitioners. Mrs. A.T. Jhaveri, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 12 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 The Petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mumbai dated 02 nd December, 2008 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present Petitioners for discharge. 3 The Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 359 of 1997 registered with Vile Parle, Police Station. 2 4 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that one building namely Pravin Smriti was constructed by M/s. V.R. Associates of which the present Applicants are partners. After construction, the flats were handed over to the purchasers in the year 1986. On 16 th August, 1997, the building collapsed resulting into death of two persons and injuring the several persons. Accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 427, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 For finding out the cause for the collapse of the building, a committee was appointed by the Municipal Corporation under the chairmanship of one Mr. R.N. Raikar. The Committee has given its detailed report. The architect and the Structural Designer of the building had approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 389 of 2008. This Court after considering the findings of said Mr. R.N. Raikar Committee found that at the most, the allegations that could be made out, were of negligence while preparing the structural design of the building. This Court therefore, on 15 th June, 2009 passed following orders: “ i) Impugned order dated 14 th July, 2008 is modified. ii) The applicant stands discharged from the case to the extent to which he is sought to be proceeded against under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It is clarified that charge under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. 3 iii) Revision application is partly allowed in above terms.” 6 It can be seen that the main reason for collapse of the building according to the experts was inadvertent omissions leading to cumulative effects. Insofar as the present Applicants who are the contractors are concerned, the said Mr. R.N. Raikar Committee has found thus: “ b) The concrete quality strengthwise appears to be satisfactory. Core concrete when tested indicates a strength of @ 195 kgs. / Cm2 as against 150 Kgs. / Cm2 as presumed in the design. Workmanship to a limited extent below the plinth is noted to be reasonably satisfactory considering impact related damage during the collapse.” 7 It can thus clearly be seen that the said Mr. R.N. Raikar Committee has found that the Petitioners have done their part of the work to the satisfactory extent, as is normally expected, except level of foundation. It has been further observed that, however, this could not be considered as significant contribution for the collapse. 8 Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, I find that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the Applicants, who are the architect and structure engineer also is required 4 to be granted in favour of the present Petitioners. 9 The Applicants are therefore discharged from the case to the extent for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and that the charge under Section 304 shall be modified to the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 10 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]