Back
1964 Supreme(Bom) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(K. N. Wanchoo and J. R. Mulholkar JJ.)
KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMEDALLI RANGAWALLA - Appellant
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent.
Advocates Appeared
For appellant – S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Rovinder Narain.
For respondent – S. G. Patwardhan, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. H. Dhebar.
The direct or proximate cause of death is required for liability under section 304-A, and knowingly or negligently omitting to take precautions against probable danger to human life with fire or combustible matter constitutes an offense under section 285 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 304-A AND 285 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CAUSING DEATH BY RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT - OMISSION TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST PROBABLE DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE - FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the owner of a factory licensed to manufacture paints involving a cold process, converted the factory to a process of manufacturing wet paints by heating, without a license. A fire broke out due to the negligence of an employee while adding turpentine to melted rosin, resulting in the death of seven workers. The appellant was convicted under sections 304-A (causing death by rash or negligent act) and 285 (negligently endangering human life with fire or combustible matter) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's act of allowing burners to be used in the same room where varnish and turpentine were stored, though negligent, was not the direct or proximate cause of the fire. The direct cause was the employee's negligence in adding turpentine too quickly to the melted rosin. Therefore, the appellant could not be held liable under section 304-A.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's act of allowing burners to be used in the same room where varnish and turpentine were stored amounted to causing death by rash or negligent act under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the appellant's omission to take precautions against probable danger to human life by lighting burners in the same room as combustible matter constituted an offense under section 285 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 304-A requires a direct or proximate causal link between the rash or negligent act and the death. In this case, the employee's negligence was the direct cause of the fire, not the appellant's act of allowing burners in the room. 2. The appellant knowingly or negligently omitted to take precautions against probable danger to human life by lighting burners in the same room as combustible matter, in breach of the license conditions. This omission amounted to an offense under section 285.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under section 304-A but upholding the conviction under section 285. The appellant was ordered to surrender to his bail to serve the remaining sentence under section 285.
WANCHOO J. -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 Court 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 14,000 gallons of paint. The licence was issued subject to certain conditions to which we shall refer later. The appellant is the manager and the 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 4 p. m. The barrel in which the rosin is melted is about 4t 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 the 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 combustibie 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 4 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 the 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 facto
