However, in view of categorical finding recorded by this Court, in its binding judgment dated 13.9.1996 that there was numbermaterial for a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC and companysequential quashing of the said charge, with a direction to frame the charge under Section 304A IPC, the learned Magistrate was barred from exercising his judicial power under Section 323 of the Code, even though the Code vested the jurisdiction in him to alter the charge or companymit the case to the Court of Sessions as the case may be, on the basis of evidence that came on record during the trial.
2, 3, 4 and 12.
237 of 1992 See Order dated 30th April, 1992 .
2, 3, 4 and 12 under the very same Sections but with the aid of Section 35 of IPC.
The evidence placed in support of the charge under Section 304A IPC during the trial of the said accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal showed prima facie that the said accused had companymitted offences punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
It may be mentioned that at the time of framing of charge, the Court had before it, accused Nos.
Applications seeking leave to file a review petition being Criminal Misc.
The CBI State of P. did number question the said 1996 judgment or filed any review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution and instead proceeded for the next 14 years to prosecute the accused under Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338 read with Section 35 IPC.
The said application was rejected by the C.J.M. on the same day.
The accused after having unsuccessfully challenged the order framing charge by the Court of Sessions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, brought the matter to this Court in four separate appeals in which the leading case was Appeal Cri.
This application was number supported by CBI.
On July 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No.
On the night of December 02, 1984 there was a massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC storage tank at Bhopal plant of the Union Carbide I Ltd. UCIL into the atmosphere causing the death of 5,295 people leaving 5,68,292 people suffering from different kinds of injuries ranging from permanent total disablement to less serious injuries.
2 which stood ultimately disposed of by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated September 13, 1996 in the case of Keshub Mahindra supra .
5 to 9 under Sections 304 Part II , 324, 326 and 429 of IPC and against accused Nos.
Since the charge sheets inter alia alleged companymission of offence under Sections 304, 324, 326, 429 read with Section 35 of IPC, the case was companymitted by the C.J.M. to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.
It is only on 26th April, 2010, after the defence evidence stood companycluded and after companyclusion of the oral arguments by the Senior Public Prosecutor, that, a petition was filed jointly by BGPSSS and BGPMUS under Section 216 Cr.
This Court held that on the material produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charges, numbercharges companyld have been framed against the accused under Section 304 Part II or under Sections 324, 326, 429 with or without the aid of Section 35 IPC and it accordingly quashed the charges framed by the Sessions Court and directed that on the material led by the prosecution the charge under Section 304A IPC companyld be made out against accused Nos.
2 to 9 and accused No.
On 23rd August, 2010, CBI filed the criminal revision only after the present curative petitions were filed before this Court on August 2, 2010.
1 Warren Anderson was absconding and the Court was also unable to bring before it the other two companypanies, UCC and Union Carbide Eastern Inc., accused Nos.
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and under the same sections with the aid of Section 35 against accused Nos.
10 and 11.
1104 of 1984 under Section 304A IPC.
On the day following the incident, the SHO, Hanuman Ganj Police Station, suo moto, registered a Crime Case No.
But for the said judgment of this Court dated 13.9.1996, the learned Magistrate would have, by taking numbere of the said material, companymitted the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code .
1713 16 of 1997 in a proposed review petition stood dismissed on March 10, 1997.
487 of 2010 was filed by the CBI before the Court of Sessions for enhancement of sentences under the existing charges.
12 UCIL whereas accused No.
The judgment dated 13.9.1996 therefore resulted in perpetuation of irremediable injustice necessitating filing of the curative petitions seeking recall of the judgment dated 13.9.1996.
On December 06, 1984 investigation was handed over to the CBI, which investigation stood companypleted, resulting in filing of charge sheets by the CBI in the Court of C.J.M., Bhopal on December 01, 1987.
Petition Nos.
1672 of 1996 filed at the instance of accused No.
2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338 read with Section 35 IPC and sentencing them to two years imprisonment.
These applications were filed jointly by Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti BGPSSS , Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan BGPMUS and Bhopal Group for Information and Action BGIA .
P.C. and inter alia praying for a direction to enhance charges and companymit.
1104 of 1984 stood disposed of by the C.J.M. vide his judgment companyvicting accused Nos.
P.C., challenging the alleged failure of the C.J.M. to enhance the charges to Section 304 Part II in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.
P.C. Ultimately on June 7, 2010 Criminal Case No.
P.C., and to companymit the trial of the case to Sessions under Section 323 Cr.
On the same day the State of M.P. also filed Criminal Revision Application No.
All the appeals and revisions remain pending before the Court of Sessions.
369 of 2010 was filed by State of M.P. before the Court of Sessions with a prayer for enhancement of sentences under the existing charges.
330 of 2010 before the Court of Sessions under Section 397 Cr.
On June 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No.
On 8th April, 1993, the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal passed an order framing charges against the accused Nos.
P.C. for enhancement of the charge to Section 304 Part II IPC.
However, this order of the C.J.M. was also never challenged under Section 397/399 or under Section 482 Cr.
