The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition pertaining to the investigation into the death of former Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus Mistry which challenges the non-inclusion of criminal charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with culpable homicide.

Sandesh Jedhe who filed the petition has asked for directions to the Maharashtra Police for not putting 304A (causing death by negligence) IPC against the accused in the Cyrus Mistry accident but incorporating Section 304 II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne said that this was more like a publicity interest litigation, and not a public interest at all. 

The bench said that the charges are to be framed (in the case), chargesheet is already filed (by the prosecution).

The Court added that they do not see any public interest involved in the PIL. The bench agreed that the PIL was without substance or merits or cause. We dismiss with costs.

In September last year, Cyrus Mistry and Jehangir Pandole succumbed to injuries caused by accident after the car in which they were travelling met with a fatal accident. Anahita and Darius Pandole, who were also in the car at the time, survived the accident

During the hearing on Tuesday, Advocates Viquar Rajguru and Sadiq Ali appearing for the petitioner said that Anahita Pandole, the accused in the case, was under the influence of alcohol while she was driving the car carrying her husband Darius, Mistry and Jehangir Pandole.

The counsel also said that a forensic report indicates that Anahita was under the influence of alcohol as she had been consuming liquor at a café the previous night before she drove the vehicle which carried carrying Mistry.

The Court when asked about the source source of his information, the lawyer claimed it was a confidential source. 

The Court also found that a pleading in the petition claims that Anahita’s blood sample had not been collected immediately, was not in tune with the actual facts of the case.

Ali argued that the same had been filed based on news reports. 

The Bench however said that it appears that the petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL.

The Court added that when petition is filed, pleadings are on oath, they cannot be casual and wanton pleadings.

The Court relies on the pleadings. Even the statements about drunk driving of accused are not supported by any evidence on record.

The Court added that when a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs,

It thus concluded that since the petitioner was not aware of the facts personally, he should not have filed a petition at all and dismissed it.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a roadways bus driver convicted and sentenced for rash driving or riding on public roads and causing death by negligence.  

A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “Two persons have died in the accident. No one can and much fewer persons driving roadways buses can be permitted to drive in rash and negligent manner so as to put the lives of passengers and other persons in danger.”

Further, the Court held, “It is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 368 CrPC to the Petitioner and reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner,” while dismissing the revision petition and canceling his bail bonds and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

The petitioner, Ram Kishan, has challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), South East, Saket wherein he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offense under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years for an offense under Section 304A IPC and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the legal representatives of the victim.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the High Court that since the deposition of (Prosecution Witness) PW-1 is vague in the manner as to how the accident had occurred, the order of courts below should be set aside.

The Delhi High Court said, “the fact that no public witness had been examined cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.”

The petitioner’s counsel further stated that the death had occurred due to bleeding and not due to the injuries. He also stated that it was the motorcycle that was driven at a high speed and hit the bus on the side due to which they fell on the road.

Refuting the contentions made by the petitioner, the prosecution counsel submitted that as the scope of revision under Section 397/401 CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC is narrow, courts do not go into the excruciating details on facts and unless the judgments of the courts below are so perverse High Court does not interfere with concurrent findings.

Read Also: Will possessing large number of cough syrup bottles with codeine count as illicit drug trade? Delhi HC bench refers matter to larger bench

He further argued that it is well settled that a revisional court is not an appellate court and it cannot substitute its conclusion to the one arrived at by two courts just because another view is possible.

The Delhi High Court perused the deposition of PW-1 and said, “there is no reason to disbelieve him as he has no animosity towards the accused. He has withstood a detailed cross-examination.”