1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.
K.L.Pandya for State and Mr. Ekant Ahuja for the opponent.
2. By way of this revision application, the State has challenged the order dated 14.08.2006 passed by learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.106 of 2006, whereby, the opponent herein is discharged from the criminal liability arising out of the offence registered with Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad City bearing I-CR No.78 of 2001.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under.
3.1 On the fateful day of 26th January, 2001, the State of Gujarat was rocked by massive earthquake. Among other cities, Ahmedabad City was also badly hit. At number of places, buildings had collapsed, many persons died. The present case also one of such case. One building viz., Vardayani Apartment, which had 16 flats, at Parijat Society, Fatehpura, Ahmedabad had also collapsed. Twelve persons died, including two family members of the present opponent, who was staying with his family in the said building.
3.2 One of the residents of that flat, whose family member had died in that collapse, filed complaint against the contractor and his partners. Thus, offence came to be registered against three persons. One Pravinbhai Maniar, the contract was named as accused no.1. Said Pravinbhai Maniar had got one firm registered as a partnership firm, wherein, his sister's son Prakash Shah was also named as one of the partners. Said Prakash Shah is accused no.2, the present opponent. One Sumatilal Jain, who was a student at that time, was also named as a partner, who was named as accused No:3. Effectively, the business was done by accused no.1.
3.3 Accused no.2, the present opponent,as noted above, also occupied a flat in that very building, where he was staying with his family. In the earthquake, wife of the opponent and his son; both died. Accused no.2 also sustained injuries and was hospitalised.
3.4 Sentiments at the relevant time, in the city and in the State were high. Builders, contracts, of whom all were not culprits, were put behind the bars. Present opponent also was not exception to it. Prosecution, according to it, having found sufficient material, filed charge-sheet in the competent Court and in turn, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.106 of 2006 in the Ahmedabad City Sessions Court.
3.5 All the three accused filed applications invoking Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge. Exh.5 application was filed by original accused no.1, Exh.6 application was filed by original accused no.2, the present opponent and Exh.7 application was filed by original accused no.3.
3.6 It transpired before the trial court that, it is the original accused no.1, who was in this business and rest two, except usage of their names, were in no way connected with actual business, much less with construction or supervising activities. Original accused no.1 did not press his application filed at Exh.5 and thus, said application came to be disposed of as not pressed, with which, this Court is not concerned at this stage. For rest two i.e. accused no.2 and accused no.3, Exh.6 and Exh.7 applications came to be decided by the order impugned dated 14.08.2006 and after hearing all the parties, including public prosecutor and taking into consideration the material placed before it, the trial Court found that that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against those two accused and therefore allowed their discharge applications. It is that order which is challenged qua one of them i.e. accused no:2.
3.7 Learned Sessions Judge has recorded reasons in detail, for discharging the opponent. The reasons recorded by learned Sessions Judge are mainly to the effect that from the statements of witnesses, it is not coming out as to these two applicants had supervised construction work in any manner or have issued orders for purchase of goods and that the name of the opponent was added in the partnership deed only as family arrangement and that the opponent did not do any dealings either with the bank or did not issue any possession letter or did not derive any profit. Learned Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that wife and son of the present opponent also died in the said occurrence, since he was also staying in the same building. Under these circumstances, learned Judge recorded his satisfaction that it is not only difficult but impossible to find mens-rea attributable to the opponent. It is recorded hat had it been so, he himself would not be walked in that flat to stay with the family. Broadly with these reasons, learned Sessions Judge allowed the discharge application filed by the present opponent.
4. In the above factual background and on going through the record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the view taken by the Court below. This revision application does not have any force. The same deserves to be dismissed and hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
[Paresh Upadhyay, J.] #MH Dave