Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
appln.1117-2010.sxw
acd
)
)
)
)
..Applicant.
(Orig. Accused No.1)
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Borivali Police Station
)
)
..Respondent.
2
appln.1117-2010.sxw
2.
The applicant has moved this Court u/s 482 of Cr. P.C.
3.
behalf of the applicant and the respondent, it may be stated here that a
chargesheet was filed by the Borivali Police Station against the applicantSanjay Harakchand Jain and his brother Kailas Harakchand Jain for the
above stated offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
The discharge application filed by the applicant-accused no.1 has been
rejected. It is a case of the applicant that he has nothing to do with the shop
3
appln.1117-2010.sxw
nos.5 and 6 and particularly removal of the wall between the two shops. It
is submitted by Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for the applicant that there
is not even a shred of evidence to prima facie hold that the applicant was
responsible for partial collapse of the building.
Additional Sessions Judge, wherein he has stated that there was no specific
mention of the applicant in the statements of the witnesses. It is further
stated that the applicant is member of the same family and he is one of the
members of the said Co-Operative Housing Society. The relevant portion
of the order of the learned Trial Jude can be reproduced as under:
5. It is true that there is no specific individual mention of the
present applicant/accused in the statements of witnesses. But,
we cannot decide the application U/Sec.227 of Cr. P.C. in the
offences like this by taking mere hyper technical view. It is an
admitted position that family of the applicant/accused is
consisting of his three brothers, their families, father and
mother. In short, it is a joint family. It has been also admitted
in the application that the family of the applicant owned three
shops on the ground floor of collapsed building
6.
It is thus clear from the said order itself that there were no
4
appln.1117-2010.sxw
statement of witness Durgesh Anil Kothari shows that the brother of the
applicant who was looking after the shop nos.4 and 5 where the business in
the name and style of Vardhman Steels was being run. It is the brother of
the applicant who had applied for repairing of the premises. The repair
work was undertaken by the brother of the applicant who is accused no.2
before the Trial Court. Similarly, the statement of the witness Manoj
Vasanji Vora also clearly shows that the shop no.5 was earlier being run by
one Pyarchand Jain. He was running the shop under the name and style
Darshan Electricals. The said shop was vacated and possession was given
to accused no.2 Kailas Jain. It is accused no.2 who was looking after the
repairs. The internal wall was also allegedly removed at the instructions of
Kailas which had resulted in weakening of the load bearing pillars.
7.
no.2 Kailas and their family members were also staying in the same
building in upper floors. Two of the family members of the applicant and
5
appln.1117-2010.sxw
9.
10.
11.
The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.1.2010
in Misc. Application (Exh.3) in Sessions Case No.57 of 2009 is set aside.
The applicant shall stand discharged of the charge levelled against him. His
bail bonds stand cancelled.
12.
6
appln.1117-2010.sxw