1. Impugning the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.4.2005 whereby the trial court, while discharging the petitioner for offences under Sections 304A/308 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) concluded that, prima facie a case for offences under Sections 304 Part II/308 IPC was made out against the petitioner.

2. In brief the allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner are that, he is the owner of Shop No. 23, DDA Market, Shanti Store, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On 22.10.2002, the said four-storeyed building, which was under construction, collapsed. This resulted into death of six labourers and grievous injuries to eight labourers. Injured Arun Kumar, who was working as mason in the said building made a statement to the police in the hospital and on his statement FIR No. 832/2002 for offences under Sections 304/308/427/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against the petitioner and co-accused Mohd. Kaif. Petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Co-accused, Mohd. Kaif the contractor could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender.

.3. Mr. P.R. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court adopted an incorrect approach when it observed that prima facie an offence under Section 304 Part II/308 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Petitioner was the owner of the shop and being an owner and a layman had no knowledge about the manner in which the construction was to be raised, the material to be used in the construction of the building and also that only repair and renovation work was being carried out in the building as the three- storeyed building already existed at the spot when renovation work was started. For that purpose, he has referred to the House Assessment Demands made by the House Tax Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the year 1995 and again in the year 1998. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the contractor who was responsible for the construction work and he had employed the labour for carrying out necessary repairs/ renovation/construction in the building, the contractor used to receive payment from the petitioner, the construction material also used to be procured by the contractor himself, he used to give necessary instructions to the labour for carrying out the work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that at the relevant time petitioner had undergone heart surgery and was not physically fit to visit the spot nor, he was present at the time when the building collapsed. He urged that the order of the trial court dated 25.4.2005 is based on conjectures and surmises and not on prima facie evidence available on record, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned APP for the State has submitted that as per the complaint, petitioner along with the contractor had been ignoring the cautions which were being given to them by the mason and insisted on expediting the work which resulted into collapse of the building and therefore, being owner of the premises, he was in the knowledge that such act could cause death of any of the labourer working there and therefore, the trial court was right when it observed that prima facie offences under Section 304 Part II read with Section 308/34 IPC were made out against the petitioner and prayed that revision being without merits deserves dismissal.

5. Undisputedly, the petitioner who happened to be accused No. 1 before the trial court is the owner of the collapsed building. It is also not in dispute that petitioner had engaged the services of contractor Mohd. Kaif for the job of construction under an oral contract. There was a sanctioned building plan and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was also collecting house tax from the petitioner after its inspection and assessment. (The house assessment of the entire fourth storeyed building has been questioned by