( 1 ) HEARD Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent State. "the relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. While exercising the powers, the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum. " [extract : Vaish Degree College Vs. Laxminarayan reported in AIR 1976 SC page 888 ]"law cannot be interpreted and enforced divorced from their effect on human beings for whom the laws are meant. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail but as is often said, rule of law must run akin to rule of life. And life of law is not logic but experience. . While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable considerations and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. " [extract : Municipal Board, Pratapgadh Vs. M. S. Chawla reported in AIR 1982 SC page 1493 ]"article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary although founded on legal inquiry. It is perfectly open for the Court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects;`courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependant upon considerations as of public interest. "[ Extract : Shivshankar Dal Mill Vs. State of Hyryana reported in AIR 1980 SC page 1037 ]rule. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the present petition are as under :- on 9-2-2001 at about 4. 30 p. m informant Kiritbhai Vitthalbhai Lalluvaida lodged the FIR for the offence which took palce on 26-1-2001 at about 8. 50 a. m. against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Section 304, 120 B, 418, 420 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (c) (d), 7 (1) (i) (ii) (2) of the Gujarat Owners Flat Act, 1973. It is stated in the FIR that on the land bearing City Final Plot No. 247, T. P. Scheme No. 29 and City Survey No. 274, two buildings are being constructed as Block A and B of `rutvij Apartment having in all 32 flats and has been registered on 28th April, 1995 in the name of Shaan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The coplainant had purchased one float in Block - B of the Rutvij Apartment in the year 1998 and for the same he has also taken loan of Rs. 1. 50 lacs from Satellite Road Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra. It is also alleged by the complainant in the complaint that B. U. Permission, share certificate, plans etc from the builder but according the petitioner, the same were very well supplied to the members. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 26th January, 2001 at about 8. 50 a. m. the portion of the staircase of Blcok No. B was broken and pillars were sank in the earth upto first floor due to massive earthquake. Howerver, no damage is caused to Blcok - A which is adjacent to Blcok-B. It is the case of the prosecution that one Satiben, wife of Vijaykumar Nair and Mahendra Patel, Jay M. Makwana and wife of Bhogilal received injury on their persons in the the said incident. Satiben was thereafter taken to hospital and there she succumbed to injuiris sustained by her. However, it is contended by the petitioner that because of sinking of a buildi