Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)Section 288 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ataur Rehman vs State on 23 November, 2009
The Petitioners herein were simply the members of the Managing Committee
who wanted the temple to be constructed for the welfare of general public. It
is stated that the Managing Committee of Hari Mandir had taken the services
of Ram Naresh, Thekedar and had entered into an agreement with him to
construct the temple in question. All the members of the Managing
Committee are laymen and were simply serving the temple. It is further
stated that the allegation against the Petitioners that they had malice in
providing low grade material is not justified. There are no specific
allegations against the Petitioners and no role has been attributed to any one
Crl. Rev. P. 550/2009 Page 1 of 6
of them. It is further stated that it was either for the contractor, architect or
for the labour themselves to decide as to how the support was to be provided
to the lanter. If at all the lanter and the roof of the temple have come down, it
cannot be due to the rash and negligent act of the Managing Committee to
which the Petitioners are members. Reliance is placed on Ataur Rehman vs.
State, 2010 (1) JCC 214 to contend that in the absence of any criminal
intention of which there was no whisper in the statement of the Complainant,
it cannot be said that the death of the victim was by rash and negligent act of
the Petitioners. Thus the impugned order framing charges against the
Petitioners is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
1