JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State in all these matters. With the consent of the parties, all these matters are taken up for final hearing today and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By filing these revision applications, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 25.3.2019 passed below Exh.52, Exh.54, Exh.55 & Exh.59 by learned Additional (ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Vyara-Tapi in Sessions Case No.48 of 2011 and further be pleased to direct discharge of the petitioners in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The facts of the case are that a complaint was filed at the Vyara Police Station under Sections 304, 337, 338, read with 114 of the IPC (C.R.No. 80 of 2010), following the death and injuries sustained by girls at the Government Girls' Hostel when a portion of the staircase collapsed on 26.01.2007. The applicants were serving as engineers in the R&B Department at Surat during the construction period of the said staircase. It is alleged that 11 girls were crushed under the debris of staircase. It is alleged that due to inferior quality materials used in construction, the accident occurred and 11 girls have lost their lives, which led to filing of the complaint. Therefore, the applicants-accused filed for discharge on the grounds that there was no negligence on their part and no offense under Sections 304, 337, 338, or 114 of IPC is made out, which came to be rejected by the impugned orders, therefore, the applicants have filed present revision applications.

4. Heard Mr.Jal Unwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the applicants-accused and Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent-State.

5. Mr.Unwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that construction started in 1989 and ended in 1994. The incident occurred in 2007, i.e. approximately after 18 years from the start of the work. He further submitted that even during the unfortunate incident, the building structure remained intact and only the staircase collapsed. He submitted that 95% structure of the building is as it is. He further submitted that, at the relevant time, the accused were not rendering their services at the site in question and there was no negligence on the part of the applicant in construction of the building. He also submitted that there was no negligence nor there was use of inferior quality materials, in view of the fact that the building survived even during 2001 earthquake. He further submitted that passage of time and weather changes affect the structures of the building and the quality might have deteriorated over a long period due to weather changes. He further submitted that the applicants had no mens rea and they had no knowledge or intention that such an unfortunate incident may happen. He further submitted that as per the settled legal position, when two views are possible, the Court must discharge the accused. In this regard he has refereed to the decision in the case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008(2) GLH 596 (SC).

6. Making above submissions, he prayed that these revision applications may be allowed by discharging the accused from the charges levelled against them.

7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed these applications on the ground that at the relevant point of time, all the applicants were serving as PWD engineers. They were required to perform their work according to the hostel's design but they were negligent and they have carried out the construction work by ignoring building codes and structural designs, specifically the load-bearing system. He also submitted that inferior quality bricks and materials were used. He submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected evidence from the Gujarat Engineering Research Institute (GERI), which took samples of concrete chunk, st