LAWS(SC)-1996-9-4

KESHUB MAHINDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On September 13, 1996
KESHUB MAHINDRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.

(2.) In these appeals the appellant-accused concerned have brought in challenge the order dated 8/4/1993 passed by the court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 1992 whereby the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 3900, 3901 and 3953 of 1995 under S. 304 Part II, 326, 324 and 429 read with Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code (for short Indian Penal Code') and framed charges under S. 304 Part II, 326, 324 and 309 against the appellants in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. ) No. 3932 of 1995. They had also challenged the orders of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 237, 238, 312 and 311 of 1993 whereby these charges were sustained. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. ) No. 3900 of 1995 is moved by Shri Keshub Mahindra who is Accused 2 before the Sessions court. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri. ) No. 3901 of 1995 is moved by Shri V. P. Gokhale who is Accused 3 in the same case. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. ) No. 3953 of 1995 is moved by Kishore Kamdar who is Accused 4 in the said case while the last appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. ) No. 3932 of 1995 is moved by six accused being Shri J. Mukund Accused 5, Dr R. B. Roy Choudhary Accused 6, Shri S. P. Choudhary Accused 7, Shri K. V. Shetty Accused 8, Shri S. I. Qureshi Accused 9 and Union Carbide India Limited ('ucil' for short) Accused 12 in the same case pending before the Sessions court at Bhopal. The appellants concerned had moved the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under S. 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code) for quashing the aforesaid charges.

(3.) With a view to highlighting the grievances of the appellants a few relevant facts deserve to be noted at the outset.