Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3772 (MAD)

Jappiaar v. State

2012-08-31

G.M.AKBAR ALI

body2012
G.M. Akbar Ali,J:-The petitioner, who is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 338, 304(ii) & 308 of IPC, was arrested on 09.08.2012 in Cr.No. 679 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police and seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.08.2012, when the contract workers were engaged in construction of a building for Jeppiaar Institute of Technology, a wall and scaffolding collapsed, as a result, 9 workers died on the spot, 3 persons critically injured and one person died subsequently and the petitioner, being the trustee of the Institution, was arrested on 09.08.2012 for the above said incident. 3. Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is only a Trustee of the Institution and he has nothing to do with the affairs of the Trust. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that as per the Trust Deed dated 16.12.2010, a trust was created for the purpose of establishment of schools, colleges, polytechnics etc., and one Marie Wilson is the Managing Trustee, who shall hold the offence for his life time. It is the duty of the Managing Trustee, responsible for the administration and as an ordinary trustee, the petitioner has no role to play. 4. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that on the fateful day, buildings were constructed for the Jeppiar Institute of Technology and according to the prosecution, a wall collapsed and unfortunately, 10 workers lost their life in the mishap and the petitioner had never any knowledge towards the incident and he cannot be held responsible and he has not committed any offence under Sec.304(ii) IPC. 5. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner is 73 years and suffering from chronic diabetes and also a heart patient. He is also a diabetic amputee. 6. However, the learned Advocate General strongly opposed for granting of bail. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the petitioner, who is the Chairman of all the Institutions, had chaired a Board Meeting in which resolutions were passed for construction of an Institute. He also pointed out that the approval for either the building plan or site plan was not obtained and CMDA approval was also not obtained. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the petitioner, who is the Chairman of all the Institutions, had chaired a Board Meeting in which resolutions were passed for construction of an Institute. He also pointed out that the approval for either the building plan or site plan was not obtained and CMDA approval was also not obtained. An illegal construction was put up on the direction of the petitioner and there are ample evidence to show that the salaries, wages have been paid only from the Institute where the petitioner is the Chairman. 7. The learned Advocate General further pointed out that the petitioner has indulged in an act of engaging the workers to construct a building in a negligence manner, thereby he has committed the offence. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. When the matter was taken up on 21.8.2012, this court granted interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 10 days upto 31.8.2012 by imposing one of the conditions which is as follows: “...... Jeppiaar Institute of Technology shall deposit ex gratia amount at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) each in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased persons and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each to the injured victims within a period of one week from today to the credit of Crime No.679 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.” 10. Again when the matter was taken up yesterday i..e, on 30.8.2012, , the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner produced evidence to the effect that an amount of Rs.26,00,000/-, as directed by this Court, has been deposited before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Trustee and also a Chairman of various Institutions. In collapsing of wall which caused the death of 10 persons, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sec.304 part (ii) IPC. 12. In 1969 LW(Crl)158 (Public Prosecutor vs Pitchaiah Moopanar alias Pichaiah Pillai), this court had an occasion to consider the defective construction of a building which collapsed causing the death of several persons. This court held as follows: "It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent himself constructed the building. It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons and the masons constructed the building. This court held as follows: "It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent himself constructed the building. It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons and the masons constructed the building. If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the lime mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be made liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building, who are supposed to be skilled. The respondent is a layman. He therefore, cannot be held liable for the negligence of the persons who actually constructed the building which negligence is teh causa causans for the collapse of the building" 13. Admittedly the petitioner was not incharge of the construction of a particular Institute coming under the Trust. In any event, now, the case has been registered and interim order has already been passed and the only thing left to consider is whether by enlarging the petitioner on bail, the petitioner will be in a position to tamper with the witness; whether the petitioner will interfere in the investigation and whether the petitioner will flee from justice. 14. Constructing building without approval does not make any change in the allegations made against the petitioner. The appropriate authority has to take action for such violation. 15. Now the case has been registered and substantial part of investigation is over and also taking note of the crucial change of circumstances, this court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions to ensure that the petitioner will not tamper with the witnesses and flee from justice. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the same sureties already executed by the petitioner and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay at Nagercoil and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks.