REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2218 OF 2011

State of Haryana   ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr.       ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This  appeal is filed  by the  State  of  Haryana

against the final judgment and order dated

27.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.413

of 2001 whereby the High Court partly allowed the

petition filed by the respondents herein and altered

1

the charge framed against them for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to that

under Section 304­A IPC.  

2) Few facts need to be mentioned  infra  for the

disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.

3) There is a private limited company called “M/s

Kee Pharma Private Limited” at Gurgaon (Haryana).

This company is engaged in the business of

manufacture of chemical drugs in their factory at

Gurgaon.

4) The respondents are said to be the

shareholders/Directors of the Company and are

responsible for the day­to­day affairs and working of

the Company and its factory.

5) On 27.06.1996, a blast occurred in the factory

premises and as a result of which smoke spread in

2

the entire factory.  When the blast occurred, 45

workers were present in the factory.  They ran here

and there for their safety. This resulted in stampede

in the factory area causing death of seven workers.  

6) This led to registration of FIR No.694 of 1996

on 27.06.1996 against the respondents in PS Sadar,

Gurgaon at the instance of some of the workers.  It

was registered  against the respondents  being the

persons responsible for the affairs and running of

the Company and its factory for commission of

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.  

7) The respondents,  questioning  the  legality  of

the FIR registered against them for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC, filed a petition

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the

3

Cr.P.C.”) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

and sought its quashing.  

8) By impugned order, the High Court partly

allowed the petition and altered the charge framed

against the respondents for the offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC to Section 304­A IPC.  

9) The State felt aggrieved by the impugned order

and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this

Court.

10) Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for

the  appellant­State  and Mr.  Gopal  Singh, learned

counsel for the respondents.

11) The short question, which arises for

consideration  in this  appeal, is  whether the  High

Court  was  justified  in partly  allowing  the petition

and thereby was justified in altering the charge

framed against the respondents for the offence

4

punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304­A

IPC.

12) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

13) At the outset,  we are constrained to observe

that the trial in the case must set  in motion and

conclude in terms of the direction of the High Court

for deciding as to whether any case under Section

304­A IPC has been made out against the

respondents or not and, if so, what punishment can

be imposed on them for commission of such offence,

and if not, then why. In our opinion, the reasoning

and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court for

altering the charge for the offence from Section 302

to Section 304­A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted

with.  

5

14) It is really unfortunate that due to pendency of

this litigation and the stay operating, the trial in the

case remained stayed for all these years. It

obviously benefited the respondents  who, despite

not  questioning the  altering  of the  charge  by the

High Court, did not face trial even for altered

charge.   

15) Without expressing any opinion on the factual

controversy on the said unfortunate incident, which

took the life of seven workers as the same is now

subject matter of trial before the Sessions Judge, we

direct the Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial

of the respondents’ case in question, to ensure that

the trial is completed on  merits  within one year

from the  date  of this  order  strictly in accordance

with law.

6

16) Needless to observe, depending upon the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions

Judge  has ample power to alter/amend/add any

charge by taking recourse to powers under Section

216 of the Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the High Court

altering the charge at this stage.  

17) With these observations/directions, the appeal

fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order

granting interim stay is recalled.

7

18) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order

forthwith to the concerned  Sessions  Judge/Police

Station for ensuring compliance of the  directions

contained in this order.

………...................................J.   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J.          [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi; August 20, 2018  

8