The court reiterated that the question of whether an accused person should be discharged from a case under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a matter to be decided on the basis of the material available on record and that the court should not make any comments on the applicability of penal provisions at that stage.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision challenges the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, arising out of Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 143 dated 8th July, 1999. By the impugned order learned Trial Court refused to discharge the accused persons.

2. Briefly stated, Debaprasad Das of village Hariharpur, set the criminal proceeding into motion by informing the Officer-in-charge of Rajarhat Police Station that on 8th July, 1999 at about 9.15 a.m. he attended the factory under the style “Moon Electrical Company” where he was working for gain. The building housed another factory under the style “Lampco Electricals” in the first floor and second floor. The entire property is owned by Chandan Dasgupta and his brother Swapan Dasgupta. While the informant was preparing himself for the work, he first heard a sound of blast on the 3rd floor, people were screaming for help. Black smoke was bellowing out of the room. Then he could understand that there had been a fire break out in the factory. Local people also assembled there. Fire Brigade came and extinguished the fire. Rabin Maity and 5-6 other workers sustained severe burn injury. Six lady workers and two male workers succumbed to burn injuries caused by fire. There was inflammable like kerosene required to run the wire compressor in the factory.

3. As the information disclosed offence cognizable in nature Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 143/1999 was registered. Police took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge sheet under Section 285/287/338/304/34 of the I.P.C. against six accused persons. The accused persons surrendered to the jurisdiction of learned Trial Court and filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Trial Court after due consideration was pleased to dismiss the application. The petitioner Jharna Dasgupta being one of the six accused persons filed this application for criminal revision.

4. Assailing the impugned judgement Mr. Abhijit Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of Chandan Dasgupta who happens to be the proprietor of the factory where the accident took place and fire broke out. She is in no way connected with the business. Police implicated her without any cogent reason. In the backdrop of such claim a report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Town Division and such report was submitted vide memo no. 23338/22/DCP/NT/BPNP-C. The said report, however, reveals that the petitioner is one of the owners of the factory under the style of “Moon Electricals Company” and the other co-owner is her husband Chandan Dasgupta. Liberty was given to the petitioner to submit supplementary affidavit to refute such contention of the police and such supplementary affidavit was filed duly affirmed by one Chandan Dasgupta, annexing certain documents issued by Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality. One of such documents Annexure-B is the tax receipt issued by the Municipal Authority acknowledging the payment of tax in respect of holding no. RGM-8/A/S/580/1999, premises no. B/8/1, Jangra Rabindra Pally, Kolkata-59 and the other one is the completion/occupancy certificate of the building issued by Municipality on 31st December, 2002. However, none of the documents has got any nexus with the business under the style of Moon Electricals Company as claimed by the Investigating Agency. Mr. Ganguly further submits that the prosecution is to prove that the petitioner is associated with the business having ownership right. No such document is submitted before the Court.

5. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly people died because of an accident. Fire broke out in the factory where workers were working. There is no reason to presume that the accused persons including the petitioner had any intention to kill any of the workers and with such mens rea set the factory on fire. Theref