Bombay High Court
DHARMESH SUNDARJI SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A director who only gave a contract to a contractor and had no direct involvement in the negligent act cannot be held liable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Summary
The case involved a construction collapse at Pelltech Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. that caused two deaths and five injuries. The applicant, Dharmesh Sundarji Shah, a director of the company, was charged under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly negligent appointment of an inexperienced contractor and his subcontractor. The applicant argued he was not present at the site and had no direct role in the accident, contending that liability should rest with the contractors. The State maintained that the director’s failure to verify the contractors’ competence made him culpable under the IPC. The High Court held that merely giving the contract did not constitute participation in the negligent act and therefore the director could not be held liable under Section 304/34. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the lower court’s order was set aside, and the applicant was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether a company director can be held criminally liable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC for deaths caused by the negligence of contractors he appointed.
- Whether the director’s failure to verify the contractor’s experience amounts to participation in the culpable act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304, 34
Subjects
- criminal liability
- director
- negligence
- culpable homicide
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- discharge
- revision
Judgment
7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2026
Dharmesh Sundarji Shah ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
Mr.P.K. Sanghrajka i/b Rajesh Sawant and Associates, for the Applicant.
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.08 Mr.Vilas Jadhav, PI, Mumbai.
11:30:49 +0530
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Application is to the impugned order dated
21st January 2026 passed below Exhibit-3 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhiwandi in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025, whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has rejected the Discharge Application of the Applicant.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 19 th August 2021, construction
work of potmala was going at Pelltech Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. At the relevant
time, a beam suddenly collapsed and seven workers got injured in the said
incident. Out of seven injured workers, two died while undergoing
treatment.
3. It is alleged that the Applicant was one of the Directors of the
said company and he had given contract for the construction to an
Page 1 of 4
7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
inexperienced contractor, Accused No.1-Mr.Rajendra Patil of M/s.Shree Sai
Samarth Enterprises, who further entrusted subcontractor, Accused no.2-
Mr.Shankar Jadhav to carry out the construction work.
4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Applicant was one of
the Directors of the company, where the incident occurred. The Applicant
had given contract to Accused No.1 who had further given a sub-contract to
Accused No.2 to carry out the construction work of M/s.Pelltech Healthcare
Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the construction work was being carried out. At the
time of incident, the Applicant was not present. The incident happened due
to the negligence of the Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Applicant has no
concern at all with the said incident. However, these facts have not been
considered by learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Applicant cannot held liable for the act done by Accused
Nos.1 and 2 and requested to allow the Application.
5. It is contention of the learned APP that the incident happened
due to sole negligence of the Applicant, as the Applicant had given the
contract to Accused Nos.1 and 2 without verifying their experience. Two
persons have died in the said accident and five persons have been injured.
As the Applicant was one of the Directors of the company, where incident
Page 2 of 4
7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
occurred and he had given contract to the Accused Nos.1 and 2. There is
prima facie case against the Applicant to go on with the trial. The defense
can be considered at the time of the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has
passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to
reject the Application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and
documents produced on record.
7. Admittedly, the construction work was being carried out by
Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Applicant was one of the Directors of the
company, where incident occurred. The Applicant had given contract of the
construction to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The question that remains now is
whether the Applicant can be held liable for the act of Accused Nos.1 and 2.
8. In my view, the construction was partly completed and incident
happened suddenly. The Applicant had given contract to Accused No.1.
Thereafter, Accused No.1 sub contracted it to the Accused No.2. So
Applicant had no direct role in the said incident nor can he be held liable for
act of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Except for giving the contract for construction
to Accused No.1, there are no other allegations against the Applicant. As
observed earlier, for the act of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the Applicant
cannot be held liable and I pass following order.
Page 3 of 4
7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 21st January 2026 passed below
Exhibit-3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhiwandi in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant is discharged from Section 304 read
with Section 34 of the IPC in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…