Judgement

GROVER, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave in which the main question for decision is whether the appellants were rightly convicted for offences under Sections 304A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellants held licences under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, hereinafter called the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder to manufacture, possess and sell fire works and gun-powder not exceeding 200 pounds and to possess and sell safety fuses. It appears that the appellants had a factory for manufacturing explosives in a house on Shad Road in Latur town. It is said that an explosion occurred in that place on May 5, 1962 at about 12 O clock as a result of which 11 persons died and 7 persons were injured. The appellants along with one B. G. Kamble were tried for offences under the various provisions of the Act and the Rules as also for offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Code. The trial Judge acquitted B. G. Kamble but convicted the appellants of the various charges framed against them and imposed fine for offences under the provisions of the Act and awarded a sentence of one year under S. 304A and three months under S. 337 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that they were to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction and sentence. The appellants then moved the High Court on the revisional side. The order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court as also the sentence on all the counts except that under S. 304-A the substantive sentence was reduced to one of rigorous imprisonment for six months but for the reasons mentioned in the judgment of the High Court the appellants were directed in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 each.

3. Now there can be no manner of doubt and it has been so found that in the explosion which took place the persons who were working in the so-called factory of the appellants where crackers etc. were being manufactured died or were injured. According to the courts below the appellants had, in their possession, unauthorised explosives in contravention of the Act and the rules and had committed a number of breaches of those rules and the conditions of the licences issued to them. The principal contention on behalf of the appellants is that even on the facts found it is not possible to hold that they were responsible for the explosion or had done anything which could be regarded as a direct and immediate cause of the explosion. Thus criminal liability could not be imposed on them under Ss. 304-A and 337 of the Code as it has not been established that the deaths or injuries caused were the direct result of any rash or negligent act on the part of the appellants or that any such act had been proved which was the proximate and efficient cause of the explosion without the intervention of another s negligence. In the High Court emphasis was laid on the absence of any positive evidence pointing to the presence of the appellants at the material time. The High Court while holding that there was no direct evidence in respect of the immediate cause of the explosion referred to the conclusion of the courts below that the appellants had committed a number of hazardous breaches of the rules framed under the Act and the conditions of the licences issued to them, particularly the storage of prohibited explosive and employment of children below the age of l 8. This it was pointed out, showed a callous disregard for the safety of the employees. It was noticed that the Assistant inspector of Explosives had also attributed the explosion to the storage of prohibited explosives of a high degree. Therefore the appellants were found to have been rightly convicted under Ss. 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants to certain decisions of this Court. In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State o