The petitioner- accused is before this Court impugning the

order dated 15.07.2023 passed in S.C.No.341/2015 on the file

of the learned LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

City (CCH-66) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for

brevity), dismissing the application filed by him under Section

227 r/w Section 311 of Cr.PC and refusing to discharge the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 336,

337 and 338 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant-

H.M.Kantharaju filed first information against accused Nos.1 to

4 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section

304, 336, 377 and 338 of IPC. It is stated that accused No.1 is

the owner of the site, accused No.2 is an Engineer, accused

No.3 is the Contractor and accused No.4 is the mason, who

constructed building in site No.1 belonging to accused No.1.

Due to their negligence and willful act of not taking any safety

measures, the building collapsed on 05.08.2013. As a result of

which, three labourers have died on the spot and ten got

- 3 -

injured. It is stated that accused No.1 being the owner of site

No.1 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kommagatta Road, Bandemata Layout,

Kengeri, started construction of the building without any licence

or sanction plan. Accused No.2 being the Engineer, accused

No.3 being the Contractor and accused No.4 being a mason

have acted negligently and proceeded to construct the building

without any safety measures, which resulted in the said

disaster and thereby, they have committed the offence as

stated above. FIR in Crime No.251/2013 of Kengeri Police

Station was registered and investigation was undertaken. After

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable Sections 304, 336, 337

and 338 of IPC.

3.

Accused No.1- petitioner herein has filed an

application under Section 227 r/w Section 311 of Cr.PC seeking

discharge. The trial Court taking into consideration the

materials that were placed before it, dismissed the application

by passing the impugned order.

4.

Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 is

before this Court in the present revision.

- 4 -

5.

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar K.S., learned counsel for

the revision petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri Jai Ram Siddi,

learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the materials

including the trial Court records.

6.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused

No.1 contended that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1.

He is the Pontiff of Bandeshwara Swamiji Mutt and owner of the

site and the building in question. He was not having any

knowledge about the construction. However, he entrusted the

work to accused No.2, who is a qualified Engineer, who in turn,

entrusted the construction work to accused No.3, who is an

experienced Contractor, who engaged the services of accused

No.4, who is also an experienced mason and they engaged the

services of the labourers to construct the building. When the

building was being constructed, the same was unfortunately

collapsed, which resulted in the said unfortunate incident. Even

though accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were working as Engineer,

Contractor and Mason and involved in actual construction of the

building, accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the

matter. He was the owner of the site who had only entrusted

- 5 -

the work of construction to accused Nos.2 to 4. Under the

criminal law, there is no vicarious liability to make accused

No.1 liable for the acts of accused Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel

for the petitioner contended that the Engineer working in

Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) visited the spot

on 10.09.2013 at the request of the Investigating Officer and

submitted his report. As per the said report, accused No.1 is

an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as

alleged.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance

on the decision in Ambalal D. Bhat Vs. State of Gujarat¹ in

support of hi