New Delhi, May 11
The seven former Union Carbide officials, sentenced to a two-year jail term by a trial court recently for the December 2-3 1984 gas tragedy in Bhopal, can still be charged with higher offences if the court of appeals found evidence against them, the Supreme Court clarified today.

The September 13, 1996 Supreme Court verdict diluting the charges from culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) IPC to a mere accident under Section 304A would not come in the way of the restoring the higher charge, a five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia held.

While the culpable homicide charge attracts a 10-year sentence, the rash and negligent act that results in an accident will entail only a two-year jail term.

The Bench rejected the contentions of the CBI and the government that the 1996 SC verdict prevented the trial court from framing higher charges against the accused. “The assumption is wrong and without any basis,” the Bench clarified.

“It stems from a complete misapprehension in regard to the binding nature of the 1996 judgment. No decision by any court, this Court not excluded, can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an Act or the Code and the 1996 judgment never intended to do so,” the SC explained today.

“In the 1996 judgment, this Court was at pains to make it absolutely clear that its findings were based on materials gathered in investigation and brought before the Court till that stage (highlighted in today’s verdict). At every place in the judgment where the Court records the finding or makes an observation in regard to the appropriate charge against the accused, it qualifies the finding or the observation by saying ‘on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing charge.’ ‘At this stage’ is a kind of constant refrain in that judgment,” the Constitution Bench explained.

The other members of the Bench were Justices Altamas Kabir, RV Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam.

“It is in our view, on the basis of the material on record, it is wrong to assume that the 1996 judgment is a fetter against the proper exercise of power by a court of competent jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Code,” the Bench further said. The 1996 verdict had been delivered by a two-member Bench headed by the then Chief Justice AH Ahmadi.

If the magistrate had failed to exercise his power under Section 323 or 216 of the Code, “it can certainly be corrected by the appellate/revisional court,” the SC clarified.