2011 (5) TMI 913 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the criminal revisions filed by the CBI and the State of M.P. the legal position is correctly stated? Whether this Court committed a serious error in ignoring material facts and quashing the charge under Section 304 (Part II) IPC?

Summary

Issues:
1. Curative petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking to recall a judgment related to charges framed against accused individuals.
2. Interpretation of the judgment dated 13.9.1996 in relation to the Bhopal gas tragedy case and subsequent legal proceedings.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed curative petitions to recall a judgment dated 13.9.1996 that quashed charges framed against certain accused individuals in the Bhopal gas tragedy case. The CBI argued that the judgment resulted in a serious error by ignoring material supporting charges under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 304A IPC instead. The CBI contended that the judgment perpetuated injustice, necessitating the filing of curative petitions for its recall.

Issue 2:
The judgment dated 13.9.1996 pertained to the Bhopal gas tragedy case where a massive gas leak resulted in numerous casualties and injuries. The judgment quashed charges under various sections of the IPC against certain accused individuals and directed the framing of charges under Section 304A IPC instead. Subsequent legal proceedings involved challenges to the order framing charges, appeals, and revisions filed by various parties, including the State of M.P. and the CBI. The Supreme Court clarified that the 1996 judgment did not restrict the powers of the trial court or the Sessions Court to frame higher charges based on additional evidence that emerged during the trial. The Court emphasized that the 1996 judgment was based on materials available at that stage and did not intend to limit the jurisdiction of the courts under relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court dismissed the curative petitions, stating that the judgment did not prevent the proper exercise of powers by a court of competent jurisdiction. The dismissal of the curative petitions did not express any opinion on the pending legal matters before the Sessions Judge in Bhopal.