REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 39-42  OF 2010

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1672-1675 OF 1996

C.B.I. & Ors. … Petitioner(s)

versus

Keshub Mahindra etc. etc.          …Respondent(s)

O R D E R

S.H. KAPADIA, CJI

1. These curative  petitions are filed by Central  Bureau of  

Investigation  for  recalling  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

13.9.1996  of  this  Court  in  Keshub Mahindra vs.  State  of  

M.P. (Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  1672-1675  of  1996  decided  on

13.9.1996  reported  in  1996  (6)  SCC 129),  on  the  following  

premises :

(i) When this Court, by the said judgment dated 13.9.1996  

quashed the charges framed against accused Nos. 2 to 5,  

7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304 (Part II), 324, 326 and  

429 IPC and directed  the  trial  court  to  frame charges  

under  Section  304A  IPC,  this  Court  had  before  it  

adequate material  to  make out prima facie,  an offence  

chargeable  under Section 304 (Part  II)  IPC.  Therefore,  

this  Court  committed  a  serious  error  in  ignoring  such  

material  and  quashing  the  charge  under  Section  304  

(Part II) IPC.

(ii) The  evidence  placed  in  support  of  the  charge  under  

Section 304A IPC during  the  trial  of  the  said  accused  

before  the  learned  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Bhopal  

showed prima facie that the said accused had committed  

offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.  But  

for the said judgment of this Court dated 13.9.1996, the  

learned Magistrate would have, by taking note of the said  

2

material,  committed  the  case  to  the  Court  of  Sessions  

under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for  

short ‘the Code’). However, in view of categorical finding  

recorded  by  this  Court,  in  its  binding  judgment  dated  

13.9.1996 that there was no material for a charge under  

Section 304 (Part II) IPC and consequential quashing of  

the  said  charge,  with  a  direction  to  frame  the  charge  

under  Section  304A  IPC,  the  learned  Magistrate  was  

barred from exercising his judicial power under Section  

323  of  the  Code,  even  though  the  Code  vested  the  

jurisdiction in him to alter the charge or commit the case  

to the Court of Sessions as the case may be, on the basis  

of evidence that came on record during the trial.

(iii) The  judgment  dated  13.9.1996  therefore  resulted  in  

perpetuation of irremediable injustice necessitating filing  

of the curative petitions seeking recall  of the judgment  

dated 13.9.1996.

3

2. On the night of December 02, 1984 there was a massive  

escape of lethal gas from the MIC storage tank at Bhopal plant  

of  the  Union  Carbide  (I)  Ltd.  (UCIL)  into  the  atmosphere  

causing  the  death  of  5,295  people  leaving  5,68,292  people  

suffering  from  different  kinds  of  injuries  ranging  from  

permanent total disablement to less serious injuries.  On the  

day  following  the  incident,  the  SHO,  Hanuman Ganj  Police  

Station, suo moto, registered a Crime Case No. 1104 of 1984  

under Section 304A IPC.  On December 06, 1984 investigation  

was  handed  over  to  the  CBI,  which  investigation  stood  

completed, resulting in filing of charge sheets by the CBI in  

the Court of C.J.M., Bhopal on December 01, 1987.  Since the  

charge sheets inter alia alleged commission of offence under  

Sections 304, 324, 326, 429 read with Section 35 of IPC, the  

case was committed by the C.J.M. to the Sessions Court as  

Sessions Case No. 237 of 1992 (See : Order dated 30th April,  

1992).  On 8th April, 1993, the 9th Additional Sessions Judge,  

Bhopal passed an order framing charges against the accused  

Nos. 5 to 9 under Sections 304 (Part II), 324, 326 and 429 of  

4

IPC and against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12 under the very  

same Sections but with the aid of Section 35 of IPC.  It may be  

mentioned that at the time of framing of charge, the Court had  

before  it,  accused Nos.  2  to  9 and accused No.  12  (UCIL)  

whereas  accused  No.  1  (Warren  Anderson)  was  absconding  

and the Court was also unable to bring before it the other two  

companies,  UCC  and  Union  Carbide  Eastern  Inc.,  accused  

Nos. 10 and 11.   

3. The accused after having unsuccessfully challenged the  

order  framing  charge  by  the  Court  of  Sessions  before  the  

Madhya Pradesh High Court, brought the matter to this Court  

in four separate appeals in which the leading case was Appeal  

(Cri.) No. 1672 of 1996 filed at the instance of accused No. 2  

which  stood  ultimately  disposed  of  by  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench of this Court dated September 13, 1996 in the  

case of  Keshub Mahindra (supra).  This Court held that on  

the  material  produced  by  the  prosecution  before  the  Trial  

Court  at  the  stage  of  framing of  charges,  no charges could  

have been framed against the accused under Section 304 (Part  

5

II) or under Sections 324, 326, 429 with or without the aid of  

Section 35 IPC and it accordingly quashed the charges framed  

by the Sessions Court and directed that on the material led by  

the prosecution the charge under Section 304A IPC could be  

made out against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and under the  

same sections with the aid of Section 35 against accused Nos.  

2,  3,  4 and 12.   Applications seeking leave to file  a  review  

petition being Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1713-16 of 1997 in  

a  proposed  review  petition  stood  dismissed  on  March  10,  

1997.  These  applications  were  filed  jointly  by  Bhopal  Gas  

Peedith  Sangharsh  Sahyog  Samiti  (BGPSSS),  Bhopal  Gas  

Peedith  Mahila  Udyog  Sangathan  (BGPMUS)  and  Bhopal  

Group for Information and Action (BGIA).  The CBI/State of  

M.P.  did  not  question the  said  1996 judgment  or  filed  any  

review  petition  under  Article  137  of  the  Constitution  and  

instead  proceeded  for  the  next  14  years  to  prosecute  the  

accused under Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338 read with Section  

35  IPC.   It  is  only  on  26th April,  2010,  after  the  defence  

evidence  stood  concluded  and  after  conclusion  of  the  oral  

6

arguments  by the  Senior  Public  Prosecutor,  that,  a  petition  

was filed jointly by BGPSSS and BGPMUS under Section 216  

Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the charge to Section 304 (Part II)  

IPC.  This application was not supported by CBI.  The said  

application  was  rejected  by  the  C.J.M.  on  the  same  day.  

However, this order of the C.J.M. was also never challenged  

under  Section  397/399  or  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  

Ultimately on June 7, 2010 Criminal Case No. 1104 of 1984  

stood disposed of by the C.J.M. vide his judgment convicting  

accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304A, 336,  

337, 338 read with Section 35 IPC and sentencing them to two  

years’ imprisonment.  On June 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No.  

369  of  2010  was  filed  by  State  of  M.P.  before  the  Court  of  

Sessions with a prayer for enhancement of sentences under the  

existing charges.  On the same day the State of M.P. also filed  

Criminal Revision Application No. 330 of 2010 before the Court  

of Sessions under Section 397 Cr.P.C., challenging the alleged  

failure of the C.J.M. to enhance the charges to Section 304 (Part  

II) in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C., and  

7

to commit the trial of the case to Sessions under Section 323  

Cr.P.C. and inter alia praying for a direction to enhance charges  

and commit.  On July 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2010  

was  filed  by  the  CBI  before  the  Court  of  Sessions  for  

enhancement of sentences under the existing charges.  On 23rd  

August,  2010,  CBI  filed  the  criminal  revision  only  after  the  

present curative petitions were filed before this Court on August  

2, 2010.  All the appeals and revisions remain pending before the  

Court of Sessions.

4. It is clear to us that in the criminal revisions filed by the  

CBI and the State of M.P.  the legal position is correctly stated.  

But the curative petitions are based on a plea that is wrong and  

fallacious.   As  noted  above,  one  of  the  main  planks  of  the  

curative petitions is that even though in course of trial before the  

Magistrate, additional evidences have come on record that fully  

warrant the framing of the higher charge (s) and the trial of the  

accused on those higher charges, as long as the 1996 judgment  

stands the Sessions Court  would feel  helpless  in framing any  

higher charges against the accused in the same way as the trial  

8

court  observed  that  in  view  of  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  

Court no court had the power to try the accused for an offence  

higher than the one under Section 304A of IPC.  The assumption  

is  wrong  and  without  any  basis.   It  stems  from  a  complete  

misapprehension in regard to the binding nature  of  the  1996  

judgment.  No decision by any court, this Court not excluded,  

can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions  

of an Act or the Code and the 1996 judgment never intended to  

do so.  In the 1996 judgment, this Court was at pains to make it  

absolutely  clear  that  its  findings  were  based  on  materials  

gathered in investigation and brought before the Court till that  

stage.  At every place in the judgment where the Court records  

the finding or makes an observation in regard to the appropriate  

charge  against  the  accused,  it  qualifies  the  finding  or  the  

observation  by  saying  “on  the  materials  produced  by  the  

prosecution for framing charge”.  “At this stage”, is a kind of a  

constant  refrain  in  that  judgment.   The  1996  judgment  was  

rendered at the stage of sections 209/228/240 of the Code and  

we are completely unable to see how the judgment can be read to  

say that it removed from the Code  sections 323, 216, 386, 397,  

9

399, 401 etc. or denuded a competent court of the powers under  

those provisions.  In our view, on the basis of the material on  

record, it is wrong to assume that the 1996 judgment is a fetter  

against the proper exercise of powers by a court of competent  

jurisdiction  under  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Code.   If  

according to the curative petitioner, the learned Magistrate failed  

to appreciate the correct legal position and misread the decision  

dated 13.9.1996 as tying his hands from exercising the power  

under  Section  323  or  under  Section  216  of  the  Code,  it  can  

certainly be corrected by the appellate/revisional court.  In fact,  

the revision petitions though belatedly filed by the State of M.P.  

and the CBI  (which are still pending) have asserted this position  

in the grounds of revision.  Moreover, no ground falling within  

the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra 2002 (4)  

SCC  388  is  made  out  in  the  curative  petitions.   Also,  no  

satisfactory explanation is given to file  such curative petitions  

after about 14 years from 1996 judgment of the Supreme Court.  

The curative petitions are therefore dismissed.

10

5. Nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of  

any view or opinion on the merits of the matters pending before  

the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal.  

…..……………………….CJI  (S. H. Kapadia)

……………………………..J.  (Altamas Kabir)

……………………………..J.           (R.V. Raveendran)

……………………………..J.  (B. Sudershan Reddy)

……………………………..J.  (Aftab Alam)

New Delhi;  May 11, 2011  

11