S. S. SHARMA,J. ( 1 ) A charge-sheet for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I. P. C. was submitted by police Lalbag District Khandwa against three persons, namely. Vijay Shanker, Ramchand and Nathu in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burhanpur. As mentioned in the petition Vijayshanker is a Sub-Engineer of the Public Health Engineering Department, M. P. , Ram Chandra and Nathu were respectively the Mukadam and the Mistry. That was registered as Criminal Case No. 2037 of 1984. The trial Magistrate heard the arguments regarding charge on 29/6/1984 and fixed the case for orders on 13/7/1984. The order was not ready on that day and so the case was again adjourned to 30/7/1984. The case was again adjourned to 317. 1984. On that day the A. C. J. M. framed charges against Vijay Shanker, Ram Chandra and Nathu for offences under Sections 337 and 338 I. P. C. For the reasons mentioned in that order he further directed as follows:. . (Vernucular Matter Ommited ). . The case was fixed for 6/9/1984. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, on 5/9/1984 an application was submitted on behalf of Dayachand and H. C. Khanna that they having come to know about the issuance of warrants against them, they have presented themselves in the Court and so they be permitted to furnish the bail. The trial Magistrate allowed that application and directed them to be released on bail but of Rs. 3000/- each. The bail bonds were furnished and the case was adjourned to 6/9/1984. On 6/9/1984 the trial Magistrate again directed for issuance of a bailable warrant of Rs. 1000/- against Puranik and adjourned the case to 18/9/1984 for consideration of charge against Dayachand and Harishchandra. On 18/9/1984 and19/9/1984 the case was again adjourned. On 19/9/1984 an order was again passed for issuance of a bailable warrant of Rs. 1000/- against Puranik. The case was adjourned to 25/9/1984 for consideration of charge against Dayachand and Harishchandra and it was fixed for 29/10/1984 for appearance of the other accused. ( 3 ) THE order-sheet dated 25/9/1984 reads as follows:. . (Vernucular Matter Ommited ). . ( 4 ) ON 29/9/1984 the site order book was produced on behalf of accused Dayachand and Harishchandra. The case was adjourned to 25/9/1984 for consideration of charge against Dayachand and Harishchandra and it was fixed for 29/10/1984 for appearance of the other accused. ( 3 ) THE order-sheet dated 25/9/1984 reads as follows:. . (Vernucular Matter Ommited ). . ( 4 ) ON 29/9/1984 the site order book was produced on behalf of accused Dayachand and Harishchandra. Although the order-sheet dated 29/9/1984 does not make a mention about any arguments having been heard but it mentions that a separate order has been passed discharging Dayachand and Harishchandra. He further observed that the case would proceed against the remaining accused and the case was ordered to be fixed on 29/10/1984 ( 5 ) THIS petition under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed by the petitioner which has been described in the cause title as M/s. S. V. Puranik, a registered partnership firm. As mentioned above, the contractor against whom the ACJM has taken cognizance was described as Mis S. V. Puranik. This is the name which has been added in the array of the accused in the slip pasted to the charge-sheet. The prayer made in this petition is for quashing the order 31/7/1984 passed by the A. C. J. M. by which he had taken cognizance against the petitioner. Notice to show came against admission was issued to the State on 8/10/1984. As agreed upon by the counsel for the petitioner and Shri L. S. Singh,govt. Advocate, the case was finally heard on merits. By that very order dated 8/10/1984 the records of the trial Court had also been called. I have perused the record. ( 6 ) THE incident in question took place on 23/1/84 at about 4 30 p. m. It appears that the construction of a water reservoir tank at Burhanpur was in progress. The contract for this construction had been given to the petitioner which is said to be a registered partnership firm. For construction of the cement concrete roof slab of the tank, centering supported by wooden pillars had been erected. While this roof work was going on some supporting wooden pillar have way. As a result of this, some construction collapsed and the labourers who were working above also fell causing injuries. For construction of the cement concrete roof slab of the tank, centering supported by wooden pillars had been erected. While this roof work was going on some supporting wooden pillar have way. As a result of this, some construction collapsed and the labourers who were working above also fell causing injuries. Report about it was lodged by one Basheer who was working as a fitter, on the same day. The offence was, however, registered on 24/1/1984 at about 8. 30 p. m. ( 7 ) THE petitioner in his petition has alleged that proper reliable centering of requisite load bearing strength had been erected which had also been pre-tested for strength and reliability. It has also been stated that the Engineers of the State Government and the petitioner himself ha I satisfied themselves about the strength and reliability of that centering before the work of filling the cement-concrete slab commenced. The petition further mentions that Although there was absolutely no legal or moral liability on the part of the supervising engineers of the State as well as the petitioner, the petitioner paid various amounts to the said workers solely on sympathetic grounds. A photo-copy of the payments so made and the receipt of the workers is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is alleged that the report lodged by Basheer attributes the incident to an accident and not to any negligence or inefficiency on the part of the petitioner. This is what, as mentioned, flows out even from the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police and no negligence or inefficiency on the part of the petitioner has been attributed. ( 8 ) IN the order dated 31/7/1984 which had been passed by the A. C. J. M. whereby the trial Magistrate had taken cognizance against the three other accused including the petitioner, he mentioned to some provisions of the M. P. Works Department Manual, 1983 wherein directions for taking precautions in the construction work which may endanger the public or the persons living round about have been laid down. Thus, according to him, according to the provision in that Manual in case of any accident, the liability is of the contractor. He also observed that the S. D. O. and the Executive Engineer are responsible for the execution of that construction so that they may ascertain that during construction there is no danger. Thus, according to him, according to the provision in that Manual in case of any accident, the liability is of the contractor. He also observed that the S. D. O. and the Executive Engineer are responsible for the execution of that construction so that they may ascertain that during construction there is no danger. On that reasoning the cognizance had been taken against those three. ( 9 ) IN the order dated 29/9/1984 whereby he had discharged Dayachand Chandel and Harishchandra Khanna, the trial Magistrate has again referred to the different provisions of the p. W. D. Manual which inter alia provide for the duties of the different officers in relations to the construction work. Paragraph 51 of the said order further indicates that the trial Magistrate had also looked into some filed relating to the constnlction as also of the sit order book. These files or the site order book had not been filed along with the charge-sheet. The prosecution along with the charge-sheet had filed copy of an order dated 13. 12. 1982 whereby different duty work had been assigned to the different Sub-Engineers and under this order Pare, who was one of the original accused was assigned the duty with regard to this reservoir tank. ( 10 ) IN the charge-sheet the allegation is that the centering had been negligently done. A copy of the Roznamcha report 1196 dated 23/1/1984 is on record, wherein the result of the enquiry conducted till then has been mentioned. According to that report no offence appear to have been made out till then and it was a mere accident. The witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation and copies of which were filed along with the charge-sheet do not allege anything against the petitioner. Admittedly, no witness bad been examined in the trial before the A. C. J. M. it is, therefore, apparent that the A. C. J. M. passed order dated 31/7/1984 without there being any material on record to take cognizance against those persons who had not been a prayed as accused in the charge-sheer filed by the prosecution. The only thing which seems to have been taken into account were the duties and the responsibilities of the contractor and the engineer etc. relating to construction work as were laid down in the P. W. D. Manual. The only thing which seems to have been taken into account were the duties and the responsibilities of the contractor and the engineer etc. relating to construction work as were laid down in the P. W. D. Manual. ( 11 ) IN Municiial Corioration of Delhi v. Ram Khan Rohtacii and others, their Lordshiis referrinci to a decision in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, laid down as follows: In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them alongwith the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. More than this, we would not like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the entire matter to the discretion of the Court concerned so that it may act according to law. We would, however, make it plain that the mere fact that the proceedings have been quashed against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against them bas been made of on the additional evidence led before it. ( 12 ) IN the instant case it bas already been stated that in the charge-sheet or in the documents filed under Section 173 of the Code, there were no allegations against the three persons against whom the A. C. J. M. had taken cognizance by his order dated 31/7/1984 but had so done only on the provisions of the P. W. D. Manual. It is an elementary principle that mere non-compliance itself without anything more would not be enough to fasten a criminal liability on the erring persons including the present petitioner. The A. C. J. M. does not also seem to have taken into account that the petitioner is a partnership firm against whom cognizance has been taken and not an individual. It is an elementary principle that mere non-compliance itself without anything more would not be enough to fasten a criminal liability on the erring persons including the present petitioner. The A. C. J. M. does not also seem to have taken into account that the petitioner is a partnership firm against whom cognizance has been taken and not an individual. ( 13 ) IN Delhi Municipalitys case (supra) their Lordships with reference to the earlier decisions have laid down as follows: It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, on offence is constituted. In other words, the fest is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code. ( 14 ) THE A. C. J. M. while discharging two out of the three accused against whom he had taken cognizance vide order dated 31/7/1984 took into account some such record i. e. files and the site order book which had not been filed by the prosecution. This was quite contrary to the law as has been laid down by their Lordships. It is apparent from the record that the taking of the cognizance against these three accused, namely, Dayachand Chandel, Harishchandra Khanna and M/s. S. V. Puranik was wholly illegal and arbitrary. The reasoning given by the A. C. J. M. while taking cognizance against them was contrary to the settled principles of law. Assuming for a moment that the reasoning for taking cognizance were good and valid in law, the order relating to the discharge of two of the accused was equally illegal perverse and arbitrary, more so in the light of the observations of their Lordships in Delhi Municipality's case (supra) which have been reproduced above. It is beyond comprehension as to how and under what procedure the A. C. J. M. could look into these files and the site order book and discharge two of the accused on that basis. However, since two of the accused have already been discharged, it is not necessary to deal regarding them any further. It is beyond comprehension as to how and under what procedure the A. C. J. M. could look into these files and the site order book and discharge two of the accused on that basis. However, since two of the accused have already been discharged, it is not necessary to deal regarding them any further. ( 15 ) APPLYING the test as has been laid down by their Lordships in Delhi Municipalitys case (supra) and the other earlier cases, this petition in my opinion deserves to be allowed. There is no material on record till this stage to prima facie fasten any criminal liability on the petitioner. As already stated the non-compliance of the different provisions of the P. W. D. Manual in themselves will not be enough to prima facie find criminality against the petitioner. Nothing could be pointed out at this stage by the learned Government Advocate also to show that material on which the A. C. J. M. could have taken cognizance against the petitioner and to add him as an accused. ( 16 ) BEFORE parting it may be mentioned that accused Vijayshanker Pare has submitted an application in this Court mentioning inter alia that in absence of Government sanction he could not be prosecuted. This objection has apparently not yet been raised in the trial Court. The accused, if so advised, may raise an objection in that Court which shall be decided in accordance with law. This objection cannot be decided in the present petition. That application of accused Vijayshanker Pare dated 29/11/984, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3t. 7. 19x4 w-hereby the A. C. J. M. had taken cognizance against the petitioner is quashed. As result of this the order relating to issuance of bailable warrant against the petitioner is also quashed. No observation made in this order shall be taken into account in the trial against the accused on whom charges have already been framed. The trial Magistrate shall proceed against those accused who were charge-sheeted by the police in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .