2018 INSC 0543
          REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2218 OF 2011
State of Haryana   ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr.       ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This   appeal   is   filed   by   the   State   of   Haryana
against   the   final   judgment   and   order   dated
27.11.2006   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &
Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.413
of   2001   whereby   the   High   Court   partly   allowed   the
petition filed by the respondents herein and altered
1

the   charge   framed   against   them   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   302   of   the   Indian   Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to that
under Section 304­A IPC. 
2) Few   facts   need   to   be   mentioned   infra   for   the
disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.
3) There is a private limited company called “M/s
Kee Pharma Private Limited” at Gurgaon (Haryana).
This   company   is   engaged   in   the   business   of
manufacture   of   chemical   drugs   in   their   factory   at
Gurgaon.
4) The   respondents   are   said   to   be   the
shareholders/Directors   of   the   Company   and   are
responsible for the day­to­day affairs and working of
the Company and its factory.
5) On 27.06.1996, a blast occurred in the factory
premises and as a result of which smoke spread in
2

the   entire   factory.   When   the   blast   occurred,   45
workers were present in the factory.   They ran here
and there for their safety. This resulted in stampede
in the factory area causing death of seven workers. 
6) This   led   to   registration   of   FIR   No.694   of   1996
on 27.06.1996 against the respondents in PS Sadar,
Gurgaon at the instance of some of the workers.   It
was   registered   against   the   respondents   being   the
persons   responsible   for   the   affairs   and   running   of
the   Company   and   its   factory   for   commission   of
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 
7) The   respondents,     questioning   the   legality   of
the   FIR   registered   against   them   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   302   IPC,   filed   a   petition
under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
3

Cr.P.C.”)   in   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana
and sought its quashing. 
8) By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   partly
allowed   the   petition   and   altered   the   charge   framed
against   the   respondents   for   the   offence   punishable
under Section 302 IPC to Section 304­A IPC. 
9) The State felt aggrieved by the impugned order
and filed this appeal by  way of special leave in this
Court.
10) Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for
the   appellant­State   and   Mr.   Gopal   Singh,   learned
counsel for the respondents.
11) The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   High
Court   was   justified   in   partly   allowing   the   petition
and   thereby   was   justified   in   altering   the   charge
framed   against   the   respondents   for   the   offence
4

punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304­A
IPC.
12) Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in the appeal.
13) At   the   outset,   we   are   constrained   to   observe
that   the   trial   in   the   case   must   set   in   motion   and
conclude in terms of the direction of the High Court
for   deciding   as   to   whether   any   case   under   Section
304­A   IPC   has   been   made   out   against   the
respondents or not and, if so, what punishment can
be imposed on them for commission of such offence,
and  if not, then  why. In our  opinion,  the  reasoning
and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court for
altering the charge for the offence from Section 302
to Section 304­A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted
with. 
5

14) It is really unfortunate that due to pendency of
this litigation and the stay operating, the trial in the
case   remained   stayed   for   all   these   years.   It
obviously   benefited   the   respondents   who,   despite
not   questioning   the   altering   of   the   charge   by   the
High   Court,   did   not   face   trial   even   for   altered
charge.  
15) Without expressing any opinion on the factual
controversy on the said unfortunate incident, which
took   the   life   of   seven   workers   as   the   same   is   now
subject matter of trial before the Sessions Judge, we
direct the Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial
of the respondents’ case in question, to ensure that
the   trial   is   completed   on   merits   within   one   year
from   the   date   of   this   order   strictly   in   accordance
with law.
6

16) Needless   to   observe,   depending   upon   the
evidence   adduced   by   the   prosecution,   the   Sessions
Judge   has   ample   power   to   alter/amend/add   any
charge   by   taking   recourse   to   powers   under   Section
216   of   the   Cr.P.C.   notwithstanding   the   High   Court
altering the charge at this stage. 
17) With these observations/directions, the appeal
fails   and   is   accordingly   dismissed.   The   order
granting interim stay is recalled.
7

18) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
forthwith   to   the   concerned   Sessions   Judge/Police
Station   for   ensuring   compliance   of   the   directions
contained in this order.
   
                   
………...................................J.
   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                    
… ...……..................................J.
         [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
8