Summary
The appellant was the manager and working partner of a firm which manufactured paints and varnish. The factory was licensed by the Bombay Municipality on certain conditions to manufacture paints involving a cold process and to store certain specified quantities of turpentine, varnish and paint. The factory did not have a license for manufacturing wet paints but nevertheless manufactured them. Four burners were used in the factory for the purpose of melting rosin or bitumen by heating them in barrels and adding turpentine thereto after the temperature cooled down to a certain degree. While this unlicensed process was going on froth overflowed out of the barrel and because of heat varnish and turpentine, which were stored at a short distance caught fire, as a result of which seven workmen died. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted under ss. 304A and 285 of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal before the High Court having been summarily dismissed he came to the Supreme Court by special leave.
HELD : (i) The appellant was not guilty under s. 304A. The mere fact that be allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out.The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out What s. 304A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. From the facts of the present case it appeared that the direct and proximate cause of the fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of one of the workmen in pouring the turpentine too early and not the appellant's act in allowing the burners to bum in the particular room. [626 E-G]Emperor V. Omkar Rampratap, (1902) IV Bom. L.R. 679, relied on.(ii) The appellant was however guilty under s. 285 of the Penal Code inasmuch he knowingly and negligently omitted to take such order with the fire and combustible matter in his possession as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire and combustible matter.His manufacture of wet paints was without the required licence; the fire in question was not authorised as required by the general conditions of his licence, and it was lighted in the proximity of turpentine and varnish against the special conditions of his licence. The mere fact that a similar accident had never taken place before in the same conditions did not prove that the danger to human life caused thereby was not 'probable'. [629 D-F]623See the full content of this document
Extract
Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla VS. State Of Maharashtra
PETITIONER: KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMMEDALI RANGWALLA Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRADATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1964BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.MUDHOLKAR, J.R.CITATION: 1965 AIR 1616 1965 SCR (2) 622CITATOR INFO : F 1968 SC 829 (12)D 1968 SC1319 (48)R 1972 SC1150 (8)ACT: Rash and negligent act-To be punishable It must be proximate cause of death-Lighting fire and storage of combustible material against conditions of license-Danger to human life caused thereby whether 'probable'-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 304A and 285.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of1963.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 8, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1963.S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.S. G. Patwardhan, B. R. G. K. Achar, for R. H. Dhebar, for t...
See the full content of this document