KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMEDALLI RANGAWALLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court raises questions regarding the interpretation of Section 304 -A and Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are not now in dispute and may be briefly set out as found by the Courts below. The appellant along with three partners is the owner of a factory styled as Carbon Dry Colour Works which manufactures paints and varnish. The factory was licensed by the Bombay Municipality in the year 1953 to manufacture paints involving a cold process and was located at 79/81 Jail Road, Dongri. The factory was also licensed to store 455 litres of turpentine, 455 litres of varnish and 14000 gallons of paint. The licence was issued subject to certain conditions to which we shall refer later. The appellant is the manager and working partner. He converted the factory from the cold process of manufacturing dry paints to a process of manufacturing wet paints by heating. For that purpose four burners were used for the purpose of melting rosin or bitumen by heating them in barrels over the burners and adding turpentine thereto after the temperature cooled down to a certain degree. On April 20, 1962, this process was going on in the factory which had no licence for manufacturing wet paints through heating, Hatim Tasduq was the person looking after the operation. According to him the rosin was melted on one burner and lime was added and the whole thing was boiled for half an hour. Thereafter the burner was extinguished and the barrel in which' the rosin was melted was allowed to cool. This began at about 4p.m. The barrel in which the rosin is melted, is about 4 1/2 feet high and after the temperature comes down to a certain level turpentine is added in the barrel to prepare Black Japan. Hatim Tasduq takes a drum of 5 gallons of turpentine which is poured into the barrel. As turpentine is poured, the mixture begins frothing and in order to keep down the froth the whole thing is stirred all the time. One man helps Hatim Tasduq in this operation. On April 20, 1962, rosin was, melted and the barrel was allowed to cool from 4 p.m. At about 5 p.m. Hatim started pouring turpentine into the barrel. It may be mentioned that 5 p.m. is the closing time and the process of pouring turpentine started just about that. As soon as Hatim started pouring turpentine the mixture began to froth. Hatim was unable to stir as according to him his assistant had gone some distance and he could not give the drum of turpentine to him so that he might stir the mixture. The result was that froth overflowed out of the barrel and because of heat, varnish and turpentine, which were stored at a short distance, caught fire. Seven men were working in a loft which is reached by a ladder and where manufactured paint is stored. The material in the premises being of combustible nature, the fire spread rapidly. Those who were working on the ground -floor managed to get out with burns only but those who were working in the loft could not get out in time with the result that all seven of them were burnt to death. The fire -brigade was sent for, but in view of the combustible nature of the material stored, it took 2 1/2 hours to bring the fire under control. After the fire was controlled, bodies of four workmen were recovered the same night. Next morning two more bodies were recovered and in the afternoon one more body was found. Thus seven of the workmen lost their lives while seven other workmen suffered burns and were sent to hospital where they were treated as indoor patients.' It may be mentioned that the appellant was not present on the premises when the fire took place, though he came there as soon as the information about it reached him.

(2.) THESE facts have been found by Courts below to be proved. Originally the other three partners were also prosecuted but the Magistrate acquitted them as the appellant was the managing partner and was directly in charge of work in the factory. On these facts the appellant was convicted under Section 304 -A and Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code and it is the correctness of that conviction which is being assailed in the present appeal. The appellant appealed to the High Court but his appeal was summarily dismissed. His' application for leave to appeal to this Court having been refused, he came to this Court and was granted special leave.

(3.) WE may in this connection refer to Emperor v. Omkar (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 679, where Sir Lawrence Jenkins had to interpret Section 304 -A and observed as follows: - To impose criminal liability under Section 304 -A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causams; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. This view has been generally followed by High Courts in India and is in our opinion the right view to take of the meaning of Section 304 -A. It is not necessary to refer to other decisions, for as we have already said this view has been generally accepted. Therefore the mere fact that the fire would not have taken place if the appellant had not allowed burners to be put in the same room in which turpentine and varnish were stored, would not be enough to make him liable under Section 304 -A, for the fire would not have taken place, with the result that seven persons were burnt to death, without the negligence of Hatim. The death in this case was, therefore, in our opinion not directly the result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant and was not the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The appellant must, therefore, be acquitted of the offence under Section 304 -A.