IN 

THE COURT  OF CHIEF  JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BHOPA
L MP(Presided By Mohan P.Tiwari)
Cr. Case No. 8460 / 1996Date of Institution 01.12.1987
State of MadhyaPradesh through CBIVs.
 Complainant
123456
SriWarrenAnderson S/OSri JohnMartin Anderson  Former Chairman, Carbide Corporation, 39, 
Old Ridgebury Road, DanburyUSA 06817(Absconder)SriKeshubMahindra S/O Lt. Sri kailash 
ChandraMahindraFormerChairman, Union CarbideIndiaLtd. 15,Mathew Road Bombay r/o Ft.
No.9&10St. Helen's CourtG.Desmukh road BombaySriVijay PrabhakerGokhle S/O Sri Prbhak
er N.Gokhle Former ManagingDirector,UnionCarbide India Ltd.  r/o15,MathewRoad Bombay
SriKishoreKamdaar formerVicePresidenti/c AP DivisionUnionCarbideIndia Ltd. r/okshitij 19th
Floor Napean BombaySriJ.Mukund former WorksManagerAPDivision Union Carbide India Lt
d. r/o6DLandsend Downersi RoadBombayDr.R.B.Roy Choudhary former Asst.WorksManager 
AP DivisionUnionCarbide India Ltd. r/oSatya Ft. No.10,15thRoad Bandra(W)Bombay(dead)
7
SriS.P. Choudhary,former Production ManagerAP Division Union CarbideIndia Ltd. r/o12Ako
rPark behind MeeraSociety Shankersheth roadGulatkhediPune
8
SriKV Shetty Plant Superintendent  AP DivisionUnionCarbideIndia Ltd.  Bhopal

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199629SriSI Qureshiformer Operato
r AP Division Union Carbide IndiaLtd.  Bhopal.10 Union Carbide Corporation,39,Old Ridgeb
uryRoad DanburyConnecticut ,USA  06817 (Absconder) ( Absconder)11 Union Carbide Corpo
th
ration,(Eastern) Inc. 16
Floor New World Office Building (East Wing)24,Sabury Tsimsa TsuKowloon Hongkong,

 ( Absconder)

12 Union Carbide India Ltd. 1,Middleton Street Calcutta16  Accused persons

For the CBISenior Public ProsecutorSriSahaiFor the AccusedNo. 2 ,Mr. Keshub 
Mahindra ,Former Chairman, Union Carbide India Ltd.  Bhopal&Accused No 12 
Union Carbide India Ltd. 1,Middleton Street Calcutta16Sri Amit Desai Senior Co
unselwith Sri AjayGuptaAdv.For the AccusedNo. 39 ,Sri D. Prasad SeniorCouns
el, and Sri Ajay Gupta Adv.

(Delivered on 0 7, June 2010)

1AccusedpersonshavebeenchargedunderSection304A336,337andS.338r/wsection 35 of Indian
Penal Code 1860.2-
ThefactsarenotdisputedthattheaccusedpersonsnamelySriWarrenAndersonS/O

SriJohnMartinAndersonFormerChairman,UnionCarbideCorporation,DanburyConnecticut,USA

SriKeshubMahindra,Chairman,UnionCarbideIndiaLtd.Bhopal,SriVijayPrbhakerGokhleManagi

ng Director,UnionCarbideIndia LtdSri  KishoreKamdaar,Vice Presidenti/cAP Division UnionC
arbideIndiaLtd,SriJ.MukundformerWorksManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.,SriDr.R.

B.RoyChoudhary(dead)Asst.WorksManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.,SriS.P.Choudh

ary,ProductionManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.,SriKVShettyPlantSuperintendentW

orksManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.BhopalandSriSIQureshiformerOperatorAPDiv

isionUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.BhopalwereemployedintheUnionCarbideofIndiaLimited(Inshort U

CIL). It is also undisputedthat in the UCIL Bhopal Plant pesticide underbrand name Sevin and

TemikweremanufacturedwiththehelpofMIC,PhosgeneandChloroform.Therewerethreestorageta

nksintheplantforthestorageofliquidMIC.ThesetanksweredesignatedasE610,E611andE
nd rd
619. On theinterveningnight of 2 and 3 Dec.1984from thetank no.E-

 610 ahugequantity ofMICescapedwhichcausedthedeathimmediatelyofthousandsofhumansbein

gsandalsocausedsimple and grevious injuriesto anumberof people,someofwhom became perma

nentlydisabledandthenumberofeffectedpersonsisnearabout5lacs.Thousandsofanimalsandothercr

eatureshadalso been effected.3ThebrieffactsofthecasearethattheUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.

(inshortUCIL)isasubsidiarycompanyoftheUnionCarbideCorporation(inshortUCC)USA.UCEIn

c.wastheRegionalOfficeofUCC,USAwhichcontrolledtheUCIL,Indiaandothers.TheUCILwasinc

orporatedon24thDecember,1959.TheUCCwasamajorshareholderwith50.9%oftheshareholdingsi

ntheUCIL.TheUCCwasnominatingitsownDirectorstotheBoardofDirectorsoftheUCIL and wase

xercisingstrict financial, administrativeandtechnicalcontrolover UCIL.UCC businessworldwide

isconductedprincipallythroughtheDivisions,subsidiariesandaffiliates.Subsidiarycompaniesareth

oseoperatinganywhereintheworldinwhichUCC'sdirectorindirectownershipismore than 50%. 4-

Videletterdated14.9.1972,theUCILhadsubmittedapplicationforforeigncollaborationwithUCC,U

SAwhichwasconsideredatlengthandinthemeantimethecompanyvideletterdated29.11.1972repres

entedthattheforeigncollaboratingcompanyhadestablishedtechnicalknowledgefor several years o

nthe basis of whichtheforeign company at USAwasmanufacturingMIC successfully.On 13.11.7
3 UCILenteredinto an agreement withUCC according to whichthebestmanufacturinginformatio

nthenavailablehadtobeprovidedtoUCIL,India.ThisnecessitatedtheUCCtosupplydesign,knowho

wandsafetymeasuresforproduction,storageanduseofMICwhichought to have been an improvem

enton thefactory of UCC, USA based on experience gained there.5-

Videletterdated1.1.70UCILappliedfortheLicensefromProgressSection,IndustrialDevelopmentIn

ternalTradeandCompanyAffairs,Govt.ofIndia,UdyogBhawan,NewDelhiformanufacturingof500

0tonesofMICbasedpesticides.TheindustriallicenseformanufactureofMICbasedpesticideswasgra

ntedtoUCILbytheMinistryofIndustryofIndustries&CivilSuppliesvideorder dated 31.10.75, inte

ralia on the condition that it should be free from air, water and soil pollution.Videletterdated30.

9.82theUCILrequestedforrenewaloftheforeigncollaborationforthemanufactureofMICbasedpesti

cides.Furthervideletterdated12.11.82theUCILrequestedforexpeditiousclearanceoftheapplication

forforeigncollaborationmentioningthereinthattheproductionofMICstartedin1980onlyandtheman

ufacturerofMICisknowntoinvolveextremelyhazardousprocesswithcomplexityofareasofefficienc

y,materialbalance,corrosionandsafetyandtheagreementofforeigncollaborationwastoterminatein1

982maybeextended.Videorderdated

24.03.83

theGovt.ofIndiaextendedforeigncollaborationwithUCC,USAformanufactureofMICbasedpestici

des from Oct., 1982to Jan., 1985.  6UnionCarbideofIndiaLtd.

(UCIL)wasrunningafactoryatBerasiaRoadBhopalforthemanufactureofMethyleIsocynate(CH 3N

=C=O)

(MIC)basedpesticidesSevinandTemic.TheMICwasalsobeingmanufacturedintheplantandbeingst

oredintheundergroundtanksnamelytank no. 610,611and 619. On the intervening night of 2nd an

d 3rdDec. 1984 from 12.00 – 12.45  AM.onwards,MICstartedtoescapefromoneofthetank610int

hefactoryofUCIL,Bhopalinthelargequantitiescausingdeath of thousands of human beingsand an
imals and injuring the health of lakhs of
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 19965human beings. It wasof un
precedented natureand hascontinuing tragic and disastrous effect on humanbeingsandanimals.
Noinformationwasavailableatthefactorysite,nowarningwasgiventothepeopleresidingaroundthef
actory.ThecasewasregisteredwithP.S.Hanumanganj,Bhopalon02.12.1984at crime No.1104/84 d
t. 03.12.84 u/s304A IPC by the then SHO Surinder Singh.  7-
Later,on6.12.84,acasewasregisteredwithCBIasRC.3/84ACU-
I.Afterthoroughscientificinvestigation,withhelpoftheteamofscientistsheadedbyDr.S.Vardarajan
DirectorGeneralofCSIRwithotherscientists,thefactswerenoticedthatMICwasstoredinlargequanti
ties,thevalvesandotherpipelinesusedintheUCIL,BhopalweremadeupofIronSteel,GalvanizedIron,
Aluminium,Zinc,CopperortheiralloysandafactalsorevealedthatpossibleentryofwaterintotheTank
610whenthewaterwashingwasgoingon.ThereafteradetailedreportwassubmittedtotheCBIandafter
othernecessaryinvestigation,CBIfiledthisChargeSheetu/s304,324,326,429IPCreadwithSection3
5ofIPCagainsttheaccusedpersons,namelyShriWarrenAnderson,theChairman,UnionCarbideCorp
oration,USA;KeshubMahindra,thenChairman,UCIBombay;VijayGokhle,thenManagingDirecto
randpresentlyChairman-
cumManagingDirector,UCIL,Bombay;KishoreKamdar,thenVicePresidentIncharge,A.P,Divisio
n,UCIL,Bombay;J.Mukund,thenWorksManager,A.P.Divisions,UCIL,Bhopal;Dr.R.B.RoyChou
dhary,thenAsstt.WorksManager,A.P.Divisions, UCIL, Bhopal; S.P. Choudhary, then Production
Manager, A.P. Division, UCIL, Bhopal; K.V.Shetty,PlantSuperintendent,A.P.Division,Bhopal;S
.I.Qureshi,Operator,A.P.Division,UCIL,Bhopal;theUnionCarbideCorporation,U.S.A;UnionCar
bideEasternInc.HongkongandUnionCarbide India Limited, Calcutta  wasfiled on  01.12.1987.
8MypredecessorcommittedthecasetotheCourtofSessionsforthetrialaccordingtolaw vide Order d
ated22.6.1992and at last the matterwentto the Supreme Court andtheHon'ble

SupremeCourt in Criminal Appeal No.1672/1996dated 13.9.1996directedthat the casebe tried u

/s304A of IPC andthe matter wasremandedto this Courtfortrial u/s304A, 336,337, 338andsecti

on35IPC  Accordingly, the chargeswere framed.  9-

Prosecutionhasexamined178witnessesinhisfavour.accusedpersonshavebeenexaminedu/s313Cr.

P.C.Theyhavesubmitedthattheyarenotliableforanyincident.Theywereeven not present onthe site 

when the gasleaked.They further submitted that it is a mistake of one ortheotherlocalemployee

oftheUCIL.TheyfurtherstatethatthefactorywasdesignedbytheUCC,USAwhichishavingexpertizei

nthefieldofMICbasedpesticidesbusinessthroughouttheworldhaving lot of experience, therefore, 

theycan not be held guilty for the alleged offense.  In their supporttheyhaveexamined eight wit

nessesin defence.10Now, the points for considerationare:
nd rd
1) whether on or about the night intervening 2 & 3
 December,1984atBhopalcausedthedeathof3828ormorepeoplebydoinganactto

witbyrunningadefectiveplantofMICadangerousvolatileandpoisonoussubstance

havinganumberof operational defects without reasonablecarewhich resultedin 

leakage ofthepoisonousgasfromtankNo.610ofAPDivisionofUCILBhopal,whic

hwasarashornegligentactnotamountingtoculpablehomicideandsharingthecom

monknowledgeof the same did not do anything to avoid theescape of the gas.

2)Whethertheaccusedpersonscanbeheldguiltyofthesamenegligibleactbyrunningth

esamedefectiveplantofMICwithoutreasonablecareandcautionwithout informin

gthe local people about theremedial precautions whichresulted intheleakageof

thegasfromtankNo.610endangeringhumanlifeandpersonalsafetysharing the co

mmon knowledge.
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 1996 73)Whethertheaccusedpers
onscanbeheldguiltyofthesamenegligibleactbyrunningthesamedefectiveplantofMICwithoutreaso
nablecareandcautionwithout informingthe local people about theremedial precautions whichres
ulted intheleakageofthegasfromtankNo.610endangeringhumanlifeandpersonalsafetysharingthec
ommonknowledgetherebycausingsimpleinjuriestothepeople.4)Whethertheaccusedpersonscanbe
heldguiltyofthesamenegligibleactbyrunningthesamedefectiveplantofMICwithoutreasonablecare
andcautionwithout informingthe local people about theremedial precautions whichresulted inth
eleakageofthegasfromtankNo.610endangeringhumanlifeandpersonalsafetysharingthecommonk
nowledgetherebycausinggrievousinjuriestothepeople.
Point No. 1 to 4
11-
Beforediscussingthedetailedevidenceadducedbytheprosecutioninthiscaseitisverymuchrelevantt
opointoutthefactswhichareeithernotdisputed,or,are,atthisstage,beyondthe pale of controversy, m
ay briefly be noticed.The Union Carbide Corporation is a company with theHeadQuarterinUS
Ahavingaffiliatedandsubsidiarycompanythroughtheworld.Thesubsidiariesweresupervisedbyfou
rregionalofficewhichwerecontrolledbyUCCUSA.UnionCarbideCorporationofIndiaLtd.
(UCIL)isasubsidiaryofUCCUSAandhavingfourteenfactoriesinIndia.Thefactory situated atBhop
al isone ofthem.UnionCarbideEasternInc. withitsoffice inHongkong,regionalofficeatUCCUSA,
th
whichcontrolledtheUCILBhopalbesidesothers.ItwasincorporatedinIndiaon 20
June, 1934, known as EvereadyIndiaLtd. It was registered underthe UnionCompaniesAct.Then
ameofthecompanywaschangedfrom24.12.1959intoUnionCarbideIndiaLtd.andfurther registered 
under the Indian CompaniesAct, 1956.

12-
UCCUSAhasbeenamajorityshareholderwith50.9%intheUCILBhopal.UCChadnominateditsown

directortotheBoardofDirectorsoftheUCILandwasexercisingfinancial,administrativeandtechnical

controlovertheUCIL.UCILinitiallystartedimportingSevin,apesticidefromUSin1960andafterimp

ortingitUCILwasmarketingthesameafteraddingdilutantstoit.Subsequentlytheyhavedecidedtoma

nufacturethebrandSevininBhopalPlantandaccordinglycreatedfacilitiesforproduction thereofwith 

MIC. 13-

MICwasbeingimportedin200LtrsofcapacityStainlessSteelDrumsfromUCCUSfromtheirPlantsitu

atedinWestVergenia,USAandlateronin1973withforeigncollaborationagreementtheymanufacture

of MIC.The accusedpersonsat the relevanttime were employedinthecapacity written against the

ir names:
WarrenAndersonChairman, UCC USA
Keshuv Mahendra Chairman, UCIL
Vijay Gokhle MD UCIL
KishoreKamdarVicePresident,  Incharge, A.P. Division UCIL. 
J. Mukund Works Manager, A.P.Div. UCIL
Dr. R.B. RoyChoudhariAsstt. WorksManager,A.P. Div. UCIL.
S.P. ChoudharyProductionManager,A.P. Div. UCIL
K.V. ShettyPlant Superintendent, A.P. Div. UCIL
nd rd
9. S.I. QureshiOperator,A.P. Div. UCIL14Theleakageofgason2 3
December,1984anddeathofnumberofpersons,animals are the some most importantadmitted fact
th
s.15It is arguedon behalf of Mr. VijayGokhale that he was appointed as MD on 26
December,1983andwaslocatedinMumbai.Plantwasdesignedandinstalledsuccessfullyandrunning
smoothlyforoverthreeyearsandMr.GokhalehadnoconnectionwithdaytodayaffairsoftheCompany.
ThesameargumenthavebeenadvancedregardingMr.KeshubMahindrathatMr.MahindrawasNon-
executiveChairmanoftheCompany,therefore,bothofthemcannotbeconvicted.16-
ThelearnedCounsel,Mr.D.Prasad,fortheaccusedpersonsnamelyShriK.S.Kamdar,ShriJ.Mukund,
ShriS.P.RaiChoudhary,ShriK.V.ShettyandShriS.I.Qureshi,hasfurtherarguedthatitwasthedesignd
efectwhytheincidenttookplaceandthereisnorecklessnessornegligenceon thepart of any of theacc
used persons.17-
ItisfurtherarguedbyShriD.Prasadl.cthatthereisnosubstantialevidenceledbytheprosecution that th
e plant was running in losses therefore, there was plan to shift the same to Brazil ortosomeothe
rCountryisonlyahypothesisoftheprosecution.ShriPrasadarguedthatUCCUSAwasrunningattherel
evantpointoftime17otherprofitmakingcompaniesthroughouttheWorldandUCILBhopalwasonlya
smallunit.,Therefore,therewasnoplanpendingwiththeBoardofDirectorsto shift the UCIL Bhopal 
plant to Brazilor els where.18BhimSinghPW1,LalitShrivastavaPW2,UmaShankerPW-
3,S.K.DubeyPW4,DolamaniBhoiPW5,Mohd.QadirKhanPW6,ShriMohanLalPW-
7,PremNarayanPW8,JairamPW9,MathuraPrasadPW10,SaptnarayanMishraPW-
14,RameshPrasadPW15,RameshBadriprasadPW16,Ram Lal PW18,NiyamatAli PW-
19,KishanBahadurPW21, BabuchandYadavPW22,Bhaiyalal PW24, Mohd. ImranPW25, Rosha
nLal PW27,RP SharmaPW31,Mohd. SaeedPW32,UmraoSinghPW33,SannawarAliPW-
36,AshokKumarSharmaPW37,Lt.Col.A.K.RashtogiPW40,GyanSinghPariharPW-
42,UmashankerTiggerPW43,BaidnathYadavPW46,Ashraf NadeemPW52, Moti Singhthe thenc
ollector BhopalPW54,the then CollectorBhopal,MadanGopalParasharPW65,Mohd.UbedPW-
81,Mohd.KhawajaPW82,Y.N.SinghPW86,MudlapattiPrabhudasPrabhunandaPW-
92,KeshavRaoPW93,RamlakhanSharmaPW95,Shivnandan Singh PW98, G.V.Iyer PW99, Mah
eshKushwaha PW104, Kishore SinghPW105,O.P.Kochar PW106, Gopilal Maran PW108, Ash
ok Kumar Shukla PW112, Bhanwarlal PW113, Thoman

P. MathewPW117,KunjiLalPW120,KeshavPratapSinghChouhanPW121,SyedAslamAliPW-

122,MubariqAliPW123,RaqibMohd.PW124,RoopSinghPW125,P.D.JoshiPW-

126,SheikhMehtabPW130,AshokKumarSharmaPW135,LT.Col.RakeshSharmPW-

136,Mohd.RayesPW137,SyedAzharAliPW140,JagdishNarayanPW141,Capt.A.K.InaniPW-

143,Brig.J.N.DaviyaPW145,AhmedRashidPW146,HeadConstableMatlubKhanPW-

148,Lt.Col.RajkumarTiwariPW152,Col.V.R.PathakPW163,NathulalPW-

168,ShahnawazKhanPW-

169RajkumarkeswaniPW172ajournalist,arethewitnesses,whodeposedabouttheleakageofgason

2-

3.1284.Kesharwani,PW172whopublishedanewsregardingtheplant.Thesamecanbeconsideredasa

nalarmtothegovt.aswellastotheUCIL.SurendraSinghThakurPW58isawitness,whohasstatedthat i

n December,1984 he wasposted asSHO, PS Hanumanganj,Bhopal.19-

Hefurtherdeposedthathewasonpetrolling.Hesawanumberofpeoplewererushingand came to kno

wthat some gashas escaped from theUCIL  Bhopal.He at oncereturned tothe Police Stationand 

informed the senior Police Officers. During this time the people of the city wererushing from h

ere tothere,thenhe wentlatenight totheUCIL Factory, wherehe metSecurity OfficerMr. Chauhan 

and Mr. K.V. Shetty andat last he lodged a FIR against Mr. J. Mukund, J.V. Shetty, S.P.Choudh

ary,R.B.RoyChoudhari,S.I.Qureshionthesameday,2.1284andmadeentryinRojnamchaExh.P.900a
 rd
nd901andlateronpreparedasitemap.Exh.P903andonthe3

December,1984 he has arrestedMr. J. Mukundpreparedaarrestmemo Exh. P904 onthe sameday

K.V. Shetty, SatyaprakashChoudhary, R.B. RoyChoudhari,S.I. Qureshi were also arrested and a
th
rrestmemo905wasprepared.On7

December,1984KeshubMahendra,J.P.Ghokaleandabscondedaccused Warren Anderson was arre

sted vide arrest Memo 906and startedinvestigation.  20-

Otherpoliceofficers,VipinTiwariSubInspectorPolicePW59,DaulatSinghPW-

67statedthathewaspostedonthedateofincidentinP.S.HanumanganjasASI.Anumberofpeoplewerel

yingdeadontheroads,therefore,hepreparedareportregardingthesedeaths.G.S.RajputPW-

68,BholaramPW74,RamswaroopSharmaPW75,C.L.SonkarPW149aresomeofthePoliceOfficers, 

who statedregarding the deathof a number of people becauseof the gasleakfromthe UCILBhopa

l Plant.   21Dr.ManjuMathurPW23,Dr.R.K.ShrivastavaPW30,Dr.RekhaBhagelPW38,Dr.

G. KumarMakhanPW37,Dr.LakhmanDasWaswaniPW41,Dr.ManmohanNandaPW-

44,Dr.BalkrishnaTiwariPW45,Dr.BhanupratapDubeyPW47,Dr.N.R.BhandariPW-

78,Dr.K.N.AgarwalPW80,Dr.P.N.BisariaPW85,Dr.R.N.TandonPW—96,Dr.NeetaSahaniPW-

129,Dr.Ashok Sharma PW151, Dr. Kailash Kaushal PW154, Dr. S.S. Kaushal PW159, Dr. Lali

t MisharPW-

176aresomeofthewitnesses,whohadconductedMLCsortheautopsiesofthevictimsofthegas.Asthef

actisnotdisputedthatthegaswasleakedandthepeoplewereaffectedandthousandsofpeople were die

d,therefore,detailed marshaling of theevidence is not required.22Therefore,the initial effectsof 

exposure were coughing,vomiting, severeeye irritationand a feelingof suffocation. Peopleawak

ened by thesesymptoms fledaway from theplant. Theacute symptoms were burning in therespir

atorytractand eyes,blepharospasm, breathlessness,stomach painsand vomiting. The causes of d

eaths werechoking, reflexogenic circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during

autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis

of the kidneys, fatty degeneration of the liver and necrotising enteritis.

23-

Thosewhoraninhaledmorethanthosewhohadavehicletoride.Owingtotheirheight,childrenandothe

rpeopleofshorterstatureinhaledhigherconcentrations.Manypeopleweretrampled trying to escape.

24-

IndustrialLicenserelatingtothepesticideswasgrantedbytheDirectorGeneralofTechnicalDevelopm

entduring199094.ThefacthasbeenprovedbyVinodKr.TyagiPW-

66,Asstt.DevelopmentOfficerintheOfficeoftheD.G.TechnicalDevelopment.Hefurthersaidthatfor

foreigncollaborationtheCompanywasrequiredtogiveinformationrelatingtotechnicalcapabilities,r

oyalty,etc.videletterdated14.9.1972.AnApplicationwasmovedbytheUCILforforeigncollaboratio

nwithUCC USA andthe samewas considered vide letterdated 29.11.1972 (Exh.P1145).25It was

assured bythe UCCUSAthat the Companyhad technicalknowledgeofseveralyearsofmanufacturi

ngtheMICinUSAsuccessfullyandonthatrelyingthesameUCILstartedmanufacturingMICinBhopa

lPlant(ExhP1140,1142andP-

1147).On26.11.1973foreigncollaborationwasapprovedbytheGovt.ofIndiafortheperiodof5yearsfr

omthedateofproduction.Thewitnesshasprovedthe IndustrialLicense Exh.P1147, P1148,P-

1149,P1151, P1153,P-

1155thesamehasnotbeenchallenged.Furthertheforeigncollaborationwasextendedupto1985videO

rder(Exh.P1158).S.S.GuptaPW-

71,UnderSecretaryintheMinistryofChemicals&Fertilizersin1993hasproveddocumentsP-

1340toP-

1345,accordingtothattheUCILwasimportingpesticidesSevinfromUCCUSAin60'sandwasmarketi

ngitafteraddingsomedilutantsandthereafterstartedmanufacturingofSevininBhopalPlantunderana
greementsignedon13.11.1973withUCC.UCCUSAwasagreedtoprovidebestmanufacturinginform

ation,regardingdesign,safetymeasures,storageof MIC, than available to UCILIndia.  26-

TheLicensewasprovided bythe IndustrialDeptt.InternalTradeand CompanyAffairs,Ministry of 

Chemicals & FertilizersGovt. of India, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi formanufacturingof 5000ton

sofMICbasedpesticides(Exh.P1147,P1148&P-

1151).TheconditionswereimposedthattheplantshouldbefreefromAir,WaterandSoilPollution.

(Videletterdated30.9.1982exh.P1157 ) UCIL requestedextensionof foreigncollaborationforthem

anufacturingof MIC base pesticidesinBhopalPlantvideOrderdated24.3.1983theGovt.ofIndiaext

endedforeigncollaborationfromOctober, 1982to January 1985 (Exh. P1158)27Theteam of scien

tists headed by Dr. S.Vardarajan Director General of CSIR with otherscientists,thefactswerenot

icedthatMIChastobestoredandhandledinstainlesssteeltanksoftype304or316goodqualitystainless

steel.Usinganyothermaterialcouldbedangerous.Inparticular, Iron,steel, galvanizediron, aluminiu

m, zinc,copperortheir alloyscouldnot beusedforthepurposeofstorageortransfer/transmissionofM

IC.ThetanksstoringMIChavetobe,forthereasonsof safety , twice the volume of the MIC to be st

ored .It was also advisedby the UCC itself thatanemptystoragetankshouldalsobekeptavailablein

standbypositionatallthetimeforemergencytransferof MIC. MIC was alsoadvisedto be stored in t

hestoragetanks under the nitrogen pressure oftheorderof1Kg/cm2gandaspecifictemperaturebelo

w15°candpreferably0°cwasalsorequiredtobemaintained.Howeverintankno.610theMICwasstore

dundernearlyatmosphericpressurefrom22.10.1984,therefore,freepassagewasavailablefortheentr

yofbackflowofthesolutionfromtheVGSintothetank.Accordingtothereportofthecommitteeabout5

00litersofwaterenteredintothetankno.610throughRVVH/PVHlines.Thethermowellandtemperatu

retransmittinglineswereoutoforder for quite sometime and therefore,no temperature was beingr
nd
ecorded .28Astheprosecutionstoryrevealsthaton2

ofDecember84before10.45PMnodeviationwasnoticedinthepressureofthetank610.Soonthereafter
inthenightshift,someoperatorsnoticedtheleakageofwaterandgasesfromtheMICstructureandtheyi

nformedthecontrol room.The control room operator saw that the pressurehad gone up in the tan

k610,thefactorystafftriedtocontrolthesituationbuttheyfailed.Thestorageandthetransferlineshavet

obefreeof anycontaminants aseven tracequantitiesof contaminantsaresufficienttoinitiate the rea

ctionwhichcouldbearunawayreaction,rapidtrimarization.Inductionperiodmayvaryfromseveralho

urstoseveraldays.Thegenerationofheatmaycauseviolentexplosion.Inparticularcontaminatedwate

r reacts exothermically to produce heat and

CO2.Consequently,thepressureinthetankriserapidlyifMICiscontaminatedwithwater.Thereaction

maybeginslowly,speciallyifthereisnoagitation,butitwillbecomeviolent.AllthesepropertiesofMIC

showthatdespiteallthesafetyprecautionsthatcouldbetaken,storageoflargequantitiesofMICinbigta

nkswasfraughtwithconsiderablerisk.29-

MICfromtankNo.610andtankNo.611wasbeingtransferredtotheSevinplantthroughstainlesssteelpi

pelines.MICiskeptunderNitrogenpressurewhichissuppliedthroughthecarbonsteelheadercommon

toallthestoragetanks.TherewasastrainerintheNitrogenline.Subsequenttothestrainerthepipeisofcar

bonsteelandleadstomakeupcontrolvalvewhichalsohaveabodyofcarbonsteel.Thesecarbonsteelpar

tscouldgetexposedtoMICvapoursandgetcorroded,providingasourceofcontaminantwhichcoulden

tertheMICstoragetankandcauseadangerous reactionwith the MIC.30During the normal working 

of the factoryMIC fumes and othergases that escaped firstpass througha pipeline called Process 

VentHeader(PVH) of 2“ diameter. Theescapinggases werecarriedbythePVHlinetoaVentGasScr

ubber(VGS)containingalkalisolutionwhichwouldneutralisetheescapinggasesandreleasetotheatm

osphere.Anotherwaythroughwhichthegasesfrom the tank can escape wasth Relief Valve Vent H

eader (RVVH)of 4” diameter.31Whenthe pressurein the tank exceed40 PSI/g ruptureof disk lea

dingto a safety reliefvalvehad tobreakand the said reliefvalvein theRVVHline openautomaticall

yto allowtheescapinggastotravelthroughtheRVVHtotheVGSforneutralisation.Accordingtothepr
osecutionstorythePVHandRVVHandwellastheothervalvesthereinwereofcarbonsteelsothiswasth

edesigndefectand valves also allowed back flow of thealkali solution from the VGSto the MIC 

tanks.32-

Againitisallegedthatafterinvestigationthefactwasnoticedthatpropernitrogenpressurewasnotmaint
nd
ainedintheMICtanksince22

October,1984andtheattemptstopressurisethetankon30/11/84and1/12/84werefailedbecauseofthed

esigndefectonthedateofincident.TankNo.610wasnearlyatmosphericpressurethereforefreepasses

wasavailablefortheentryofback flow of the solution from the VGSinto the tank.33-

TheCSIRreportrevealsthatthemaincausa-

causansfortheincidentweretheneedlessstorageoflargequantyofMICinlargetanksliketankNo.610.I

nsufficientcautionindesignchoiceofmaterialotheralarminginstruments,inadequatecontrolonsyste

msofstorageandonqualityofstoredmaterialsandaswellaslackofnecessaryfacilitiesforquickeffectiv

edisposalofmaterialwhichleadtotheincident.Moreso,onthedateofincident,theRefrigeratingSyste

mwasnotworking,theFlairTowerwasalsooutoforder,VGSwasincapableofneutralilisingthelargequ

antityofMIC.TheMICwhichisahighlydangerousandtoxicpoisonandstoredinlargequantitywas an 

act of omission on the part of the accused persons. The prosecution story goes ahead that noste

pwastakenbythethenauthoritiesnamelyShriWarrenAnderson,theChairman,UnionCarbideCorpor

ation,USA;KeshubMahindra,thethenChairman,UCIBombay;VijayGokhle,thethenManagingDir

ectorandpresentlyChairmancumManagingDirector,UCIL,Bombay;KishoreKamdar,the then Vic

e President Incharge, A.P, Division, UCIL, Bombay; J. Mukund, the then Works Manager,

A.P. Divisions,
UCIL,Bhopal; Dr. R.B. Roy Choudhary, then the Asstt. Works Manager, A.P. Divisions,

UCIL,Bhopal;S.P.Choudhary,thenProductionManager,A.P.Division,UCIL,Bhopal;K.V.Shetty,P

lantSuperintendent,A.P.Division,Bhopal;S.I.Qureshi,ProductionAssistant,A.P.Division,UCIL,B
hopal;theUnionCarbideCorporation,U.S.A;UnionCarbideEasternInc.HongkongandUnionCarbi

deIndiaLimited,Calcuttaregardingensuringthesafetyagainstaccidentalemissionoftoxicgases.34-

Nowthepointsraisedduringtheargumentsshallbeexaminedcriticallyand thrashedout  as under:

(A )DESIGN DEFECTS:
(a) -
Aprincipalofsafeindustrialdesignisthatonedoesnotguardmerelyagainstthemostpredictable,routin
etypeofaccidents.Rather,onetriestoanticipatetheworstthatcouldhappen,evenifunlikely,andnotonl
yguardagainstit,butpreparetocontainit,iftheworstdoesnottakeplace.ThedesignflawsatBhopalplan
twerenotamatterofmisplacednutsandboltsi.e.deviation from an essentially sound plan.
(b) -
ItisarguedbythelearnedCBICounselMr.SahaythatthePlantwasinitiallydefective.Hearguedthatbes
tintermediarytankswerenotprovidedforanalyzingtheproductcollectedinthetankbeforeitistransferr
edtothebulkstoragetank.TheMICwasbeingdirectlystoredinlargetanksinsteadofkeepingitinsmalle
rtanks.NoonlineanalyzeroralarmsystemwasprovidedtocontinuousmonitoringofthequalityoftheM
ICbeforeitstoredinthetanks.HereferreddocumentNo.164(Exh.P-
72).TherewasonlyonecommonRefrigerationSystemforallthethreetanks.AsaforementionedtheMI
o
Cmustbestoredatthetemperatureofnotmorethan15 C. preferably at
o
0 C.ButtheChillerSystemwasinadequateandatthetimeofincidentitwasunderrepairor out of order. 
No spare compressor or standby Chiller System was availableat the relevant
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199617 point of time. (Exh. P-
74 Document No.164)
(c) The temperature of Bhopal City is normally
o
39 CroundtheyearandatthistemperaturethestorageofMICwasquitedangerous.TheVentGasScrubb
erwasalsoinadequate,ineffectiveandoutoforderattherelevantpointoftime.VGSwasdesignedtoneut
ralizeamaximumof3.5tonsofMIC@9.6tons/hourinthevapourform.Therefore,neithertheliquidityn
nd
orthegasdisposalsystemwascapableofhandlingtheevent,whichoccurredintheinterveningon2 &
rd
3 December, 1984.
(d) Onthe otherhanditis arguedonbehalfofthe UCILthat the accusedcompanyacquiredthePlantfr
omUCCUSA,whichwasa50.9%shareholderinthecompanyattherelevanttime.  The Plant was acq
uiredafterobtainingof all Governmentalapprovals andlicense. It wassetupsometimein1979under
DesignedTransferAgreement&TechnicalServiceAgreementdated13.11.1973(Exh.P1406).Both t
hese Agreementscategoricallyrecordthat UCC wasa globalleaderinthefieldofMICbasedpesticid
eshavingbeenengagedinthisfieldformanydecadespriortotheseAgreements.TheaccusedCompany
madeeveryeffortstoacquirethebestpossibletechnologyanddesign that was then available.  The Pl
antwas set up under the guidance andsupervision of UCC andwiththeassistanceofreputedcompa
nyM/sHumphreyandGlasgow,M/sLarsen&TubroEquipments Suppliers.
(e) -
ThelearnedCounselfortheUCILhassubmittedfurtherthateveryomissionofanequipmentdoesnotam
ount“designdefect”.Furthermore,knowledgethatmayhavebeenacquiredpostaparticularincidentor
aeventdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheequipmentuptothatpointoftimewasdefective.Defectwould
necessarilyhavetobewithreferencetotheknowledgeofthenecessarytechnologyoravailabilityofthe
necessaryequipmentatthetimewhenthePlantisdesignedor set up.  Regarding the Chiller Systemt
he learned Counsel arguedthat it was in working
condition.IthasbeenswitchedoffandwasusedonlyatthetimewhenMICwasbeingtransferredintoDru
ms.Thecauseofaccidentwasnotonaccountofthefactthattherefrigerationsystemwasnotinworkingor
der,evenotherwise,aproperlyfunctioningChillerSystemwouldnotbeabletopreventtheescape of th
e gas.
(f) AsfartheVGSisconcerned,nobodyhasestimatedthatin2hours28tonsofvaporized MIC wouldes
cape.The incident of escapeof 28tonsof vaporized MIC in thehistory of MICPlantisnotknowntil
ltoday.Therefore,itcouldnotbesuggestedthattherewasadefectinthedesign, which was known to th
eaccused persons.
(g) -
UndisputedlytheMICwasstartedtobemanufacturedatBhopalPlantfrom1979underthetechnologyp
rovidedbytheUCCUSAaspertheAgreementsignedandtheLicensewasgrantedbytheGovt.ofIndiaa
ndtill1984nomajorincidenttookplacesincethanexceptoneincidentthatoccurredintheMICPlantofU
CILatBhopalon24.12.81whenMohd.AshrafaMaintenanceFitterwasworkingononeofthevaporizer
lineundertheSupervisionofShriKalyanRoy.ACriminalCaseu/s304-
AIPCwasregistered.ThesameproceedingsinitiatedontheFIRlodgedbyoneRajendraPrasadBajpai,
wasquashedvideOrderdated13.12.1989u/s482Cr.P.C.bytheHon'bleHigh Courtpassed in M.Cr.C. 
No. 206/1989 (Satyprakash ChoudharyVsState of M.P.)
(h) -
Theprosecution'smaincontentionisthatthePlantwasdefectiveandpoormaintenancewerethedirecta
ndproximatecauseoftheincidence.ItisbasedontheopinionoftheScientistsasgivenintheReport on
scientific studies on the factors related to Bhopal Toxic Gas Leakage
(Exh.575,DocumentNo.164),(Exh.807,Exh.808,)andMethyl Isocyanate
(Exh.576),amanualofUCC,ItisarguedonbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsbythelearnedcounselShriD.P
rasad that these reports have no evidential valueasthey arefactsfinding reports. On thispoint he

referred the case of R. Venkat Kishnan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2009) 11 SCC

737.Thebrieffactsofthiscase,areaCommitteewasformedintheChairmanshipofShriR.Jankiraman,t

he thenDy. Governor of Reserve Bank of India, in connectionwith thetransactions carriedout b

ylateHarshadMehtainconivancewithOfficialsoftheFinancialInstitutions,Banksillegallyasaresult

whereofLateHarshadMehtawasallowedtoobtainsomeofRs.40.00crores,whichwasactuallycallmo

ney given as a loan by National Housing Bankto UCO Bank. Similar illegal transactions relatin

gtoGovt.securitiesandothernon-

Govt.SecuritiescametothenoticeoftheCentralGovt.TheCommitteesubmitteditsreportbetweenMa

y1992andApril,1993onthebasisofthereportofthesaidCommitteeSpecialCourtswereconstitutedint

ermsoftheSpecialCourt(TrialofOffensesrelatingtotransactionsandsecurities)Act,1992.InPara67
&68ithasbeenobservedbytheHon'bleApexCourtandtheCommitteewasnotaCourt,itdidnotrendera

nydecisionandwasmerelyafactfindingbody.Itwasconstitutedforalimitedpurpose.Contentsofthere

port,therefore,withoutformal proofcouldnothavebeen takenin evidence.Accordingly, theJankira

manCommitteeReport isnot admissible inevidence.Thereportmay facilitate investigation,but ca

nnot formbasisoftheconvictionandsentenceoftheaccusedforthesaidpurposethereportwaswhollyi

nadmissibleinevidence.

(i)The circumstances as existsin the caseat hand arequite distinguishable. Thereport(Exh

.P575)isnotsimplyafactfindingreport.Itisaresultofstudiesofateamconstitutedunder the Chairman

ship of Dr. S. Varadarajan,Director General of CSIR and the other Members – Dr.

S. VaradarajanPW57,Dr.L.K.Doraiswamy,Dr.N.R.Ayyangar,Dr.C.S.P.IyerPW-

158,Dr.A.A.KhanPW159,Dr.A.K.LahiriPW128,Mr.K.V.MuzumdarPW-

139,Dr.R.A.MashelkarPW49,Dr.

R.B. MitraPW,Dr.O.G.B.NambiarPW-

116,Mr.V.Nambiar,Mr.V.Ramachandran,Mr.V.D.Sahasrabudhe, Dr. S. Sivaram PW48, Dr. M. S

riram PW127  Dr. G. Thyagarajan, Dr. R.S. 

Venkataraman..TheReporthasbeenprovedintheCourtbyexaminingtheexpertscientistsDr.Varadara

janhhimselfahighlyqualifiedandexperiencedpersonhavegothisIITfromMumbaiandheobtainedPh

DfromUSinChemicalEngineeringandworkedindifferentreputedOrganisationslikeHindustanLev

erLtd.,Mumbai,DuePond,USAandIndianInstituteofChemicalTechnologyunderCounsilofScienti

ficandIndustrialResearch(C.S.I.R.).Inandtheotherscientistswhoarehighlyqualified persons.

(j)Dr.S.VaradarajanPW-

57,inPara2ofhisstatementhasstatedthatafterthegastragedyGovt.ofIndia,MinistryofChemicals&F
th
ertilizershasaskedtheChairmantosendafewexperts.HecametoBhopalon4

ofDecember,1984alongwithtwoofhiscolleaguesandlateronateamofexpertscametotheBhopalPlan
ttoknowhowithappened.TheteamwasheadedbyDr.S.Varadarajan.Inpara3hefurthersaidthatthetea

mofexpertsincludingDr.Iyanggar,Dr.Iyer,Dr.Khan,Dr.Lahiri,Mr.Majumdar,Dr.Mashelkar,Dr.Mit

ra,Dr.Nambiyar,Mr.Ramchandra,Mr.Sahasrabudhe,Dr.Sevaram,Dr.TyagrajanandDr.Venkataram

an,visitedthefactorysiteonanumberofoccasionsandtooknumberofsamplesandstudiedthecausesoft

heleakageofMICandthereaftertheyhave submitted a detailed report (Exh.P575)

(k)Dr.M.Sriram (PW48)further deposed that a document,which was a brochure ofUCIL,

whichisexhibitedasEx.P-

576wasgiventoDr.Varadarajan.Anobjectionwasraisedduringthecourseofevidencethatthesaiddoc

umentisaXeroxcopyofadocumentandtherefore,cannotbereadinevidence.Iamoftheviewthatafores

aidobjectionwasimmaterialasdocumentinquestionwasissuedbyUCCitselfandinthelaterstagethem

ethodsandprecautiongiveninthesamehasbeenusedasdefence.Therefore,theobjectionraisedbythel

earneddefencecounselbeing devoidof merit and is notsustainable. Thusdocument  Exh. P-

576can be read in evidence, It  isabrochureregardingthepropertiesofMethyleIsocyanate,MIC,

(CH 3 N=C=O) and reveals the procedure regarding the storage and handling the same.

(l)-

ThelearnedCounselforthedefence,ShriD.Prasad,inhissubmissionhassaidthatthisisadocument(Ex

h.P-

576)whichisexpectedtobeusedbytheretailersandnotbythemanufacturers.Theargumentadvancedb

ythelearnedCounselisnotacceptableasMICisachemicalanditsstorage,evenatthemanufacturingpla

ceorotherwise,cannotbedistinguishedasitstoredin largequantitythecriteria of precaution would n

ot be different .  More so, the learned Counselinhisargumenthasreferredthisdocumentforanumb

eroftimesasadefencedocument.Therefore,two standardscan not be offeredforthesamedocument 

at the same occasion.

(m)Dr.M.SriramfurtherstatedinPara4thatthetanksforstorageofMICaredesignatedasE610, 
E611 & E619,outof thesetwo wereusedforstorageof MIC and thethirdonewaskeptasstandbyemp

tytank.ThetanksweremadeofSS304/SS316withadiameterof8ft.andlengthof40ft.TheMICwasstor

edunderNitrogenPressureof1.0Kg./cm.sqr.g.ThesupplyoftheNitrogentothestoragetanksbyacom

monheaderofcarbonsteel.ExcessNitrogenfromindividualtankistakento50mmcommonProcessVe

ntHeader(PVH)i.e.ofcarbonsteel.TherewasaRelieveValveVentHeader(RVVH)forindividualtank.

Thatwasalsoofcarbonsteel.BothRVVHandPVHwereinterconnected.Therefore,useofcarbonsteel

amountstoagrossnegligenceonthepart of the accused persons as it  is a restricted metal with reg

ardto  MIC. 
(n)
TherewasaVentGasScrubber(VGS),whichwasmeanttoneutralizedthetoxicexhaustedfromMICPl
antandStorageSystem.Itisbetween1.6lt.ofdiameterto3.6diameterand about 15meters of heightw
here anaccumulatordilute causticsolutionwas kept for circulation.  
The VGS Accumulatorwas able to neutralize a certain quantity of MIC at a controlledrate. The
rewasaFlareTowerwhichwasusedprimarilytoburntheventgasesfromCarbonmonoxide(CO)Unit.
TheflaretoweralsoburntnormalventgasesfromMICstoragetanksandVGS,wasalsoadequateforasm
allquantityofthegases[3.5tons(7700lbofMIC@9.6tons/hr{21200lb/hr}inavapourform)], but, not
expected to handle largereleaseof MIC vapour directly. (Exh. P912)
(o)
Therefore, there was no arrangementto handle   such a huge releaseof  gasesfromtheFactory.Ac
3
cumulator,volumeof80m
(21000gal)iffittedwiththerecommended10%causticsolutioncanbeutilizedforamaximumofabout1
3tonsofMIC.Itmighthavebeenstoredinsmallquantitiesinsteadoflargetankslike610&611lookingto
theproductionofSevinintheBhopalPlant,whichisapproximately3-
4tonsperday.Therefore,consideringthenatureofMICitwasnotsafetostore90tonsofthematerialthatt
ooinlargetanks.Therefore,itisagainagrossnegligencetowardsthe safetymeasures of theMIC. 
(p)
ThesamefactshavebeencorroboratedintheircourtstatementsbyanotherScientist of  team,. Dr. R.K
. MashalkerPW49in his statement has also drawn attention regardingtheReport,whichisin2Vol.,
Exh.P807&Exh.P808,apartfromExh.P575.Dr.S.VaradarajanPW57, was the Head of the team of 
experts who visited the Plant Site very next day of the incident.  He isanexperthaving excellent
qualification. M.Sc. PhD. From Delhi & Cambridge several  Honorary D.ScsalsoformerPreside
nt all three majorIndian Academyof Science Bangalore,Indian National AcademyDelhistartedb
yShriM.N.ShahandIndianNationalAcademyofEngineeringandanumberofotherSocieties. 

(q)Dr.S.VardharajanPW-

57,inpara2ofhisstatementstatesthattherewereseveraldefects,suchasMICisaliquidbutitevaporates
withairandishighlytoxiconinhilationasitis made of carbonmonoxide. Carbon monoxideconverte

d into Phosegen, is required to be utilized
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199623immediatelyand not to be
stored.  Storage of MIC should have beenhighlylimited onlyto meet therequirements for conver
sion into Sevin as littleas possible.  (r)-
InPara5hefurthersaysthatthedesignrequiredinhibitortopreventvoluntarypolymerizationofMIC.P
olymerizationproducesveryhightemperatureandthatacceleratespolymerizationinanexplosiveman
ner.Therearedesigndefects,suchasuseofCarbon,Steelandothermaterialandpipesandothermateri
als.TheseareleadingtocorrosioninthepresenceofevenquantitiesofHydrogenChloride,Hydrochlor
icAcid(HCL)arisingfromPhosegen,Chloroformand otherChloride materials.

(s)Dr.O.G.B.NambiyarPW116,Dr.S.SivaramPW127,Dr.A.K.LahiriPW-

128andDr.K.V.MazumdarPW139,Dr.C.S.P.AiyyarPW158,Dr.A.A.KhanPW-

159arealsowellqualifiedwithvast experience intherelevantfieldalsoareof thesame opinion.Theya

re theexperts,whopersonallyanalyzedthevariousevents,instrumentsandtestsofvarioussamples.Th

erefore,theiropinion can not be discarded.

(t)-

NowIconsidertheevidenceoftheDefencewitnessesledbytheaccusedpersons.Theyare:Mr.V.K.Beh

l(DW1),Mr.V.S.Subramanium(DW2),B.R.D.Krishnamurthy(DW3),T.K.Unnikrishnan(DW4), 

N.C. Agnihotri (DW5),A.V. Paralikar DW6,V.R. TadwalkarDW7, T.R. Raghuraman (DW8).

(u)V.K.Behl(DW-

1)saysthatfromAugust1978toMay,1984hewasemployedinUCIL,BhopalinthecapacityofSafetyM

anager.HeisaB.Sc.ChemicalEngineerfromPunjabChandigarhUniversityandhadbeenemployedin

differentorganisationindifferentcapacities.Hefurthersaysthatveryhighstandardofsecuritywasmai

ntainedinUCIL.TherewereseveralsafetymanualsforthePlantandcompliancethereof,ofveryhighst

andard,but,hedidnotutterasingleword regarding the designof the Plant. All the manualsare in En

glish language andhowthey were
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199624understandable to the wor
kers less qualifiedor did not know Eglish language .Therefore, his statement asfaras the design 
of the Plant is concerned serves no purpose .(v)Mr.V.S.Subramanium(DW-
st
2)saysthathejoinedUCILonMarch1 ,1960atCalcutta.  However, he further says in Para 13that h
e wasnever employed in UCIL Bhopal Plant andnevervisitedandwasquiteunawareabouttheproc
essthathowMICwasbeingmanufacturedinBhopalPlant.InPara14heagainsaysthathehasnoideaabo
uttheMIC,therefore,thiswitnessalsoserves nopurpose for the defence.(w)Mr. B.R.D. Krishnamu
rthy DW3,  statesthat he waslooking after the personnelmattersoftheUCIL.HeissimplyaPostGra
duate(MAPersonnelManagement&LabourWelfare)Hence,heis not supposed to beanexpertof C
hemicals Engineering.  He did not uttered even a singleword aboutthe design of thePlant. (x)-
Theotherwitnesses,ShriD.K.UnnikrishnanDW4referredExh.D26&D-
27inhisstatement,whichissimplyaCertificatereceivedbytheNationalSafetyCouncilsetupbyGover
nmentofIndia.However,incrossexaminationhesaysthathehasnevergonethroughareport about the 
safety measures and design of the Plant, therefore, ReportExh. D26 & D27can notbeconsidered
as a Certificateof Designand Safety. (y)-
OtherimportantwitnessisMr.N.C.Agnihotri,hestatedthatheservedUCILBhopalfrom1977toSepte
mber,1989indifferentcapacities.HehadhisB.Sc.HonoursinChemicalEng. fromBombayUniversit
y andalsoobtained a special training of3monthswithsome otherUCILemployees in the Plant situ
ated in South Charleston, West Verginia, USA.  In para 3 he states that thePlantatBhopalwasde
signedinthesamepatternasthatoftheVerginiaUCCUSA.In1980sanAmerican,Mr.WarrenWoomerc
ametoIndiaandremainedherefortwoyearsinthecapacityofGeneral Works Manager. In Para 4 he f
urther says that the Plant, whichis situated in USA is 

comparativelylarge twice to the capacity of UCIL Bhopal.  The Storage Tanks in Verginia Pla

nt weredouble in capacity.

(z)-

ItisworthwhiletomentionherethattheGovernmentofIndiaandtheTeamofScientistsadmittedlywasn

everpermittedtovisitthePlantatVerginia,USA.Nobrochure,oranyotherdocumentaryevidencedem

onstratingthesimilaritybetweenthetwoplantsatVerginiaandBhopalhasbeenproducedbeforethecou

rtbythedefence.Sothestatementofthiswitnessregardingthesimilarityindesignoftwoplantscannotbe

treatedasbaretruth.UnderSection106ofIndianEvidenceActthefactswithinthespecificknowledgeof

thepartyonustoprovethesameshifted onthe shoulders of that party.The same hasnot been dischar

ged.
(aa)-
Hebeingexpertofthisfielddoesn'tsaythatintheotherpartsoftheworldattherelevantpointoftimethere
wereplantsmanufacturingpesticidesbyusinglesshazardouschemicalsi.e.dimethyleurea,diphenyle
carbonate.HeisalsosilentthatonecrucialtypeofequipmentwasmissingintheBhopalplantwasgasdet
ector,capableofsensingandlocatingthetoxicleaks.WhileinBhopaltheworkerswereusedtosensethel
eakofgasesbysmelling.HekeptmumthatattherelevantpointoftimetheplantatAntwerp,Belgium,and
Dormagen,WestGermanyMICismanufactured and processeddirectly with littlestorage.

(ab)AsfarasthestatementsofRajeevKapoorPW53,T.R.ChauhanPW62,Dr.ArshadAli PW-
159, Subimal Bose PW161, K. ParikhPW164, Rajgopal PW170are concerned, theyonlystatetha

tthewholetechnologyoftheUCILPlantwasimportedfromUCCUSA,but,theysaynothingwhetherth

etechnologywasfoolprooforthesameasimplantedinthePlantofUCCinWestVerginia.

(ac)Therefore,theargumentsadvancedbythelearnedCounselthattheUCCwaswellknown C

ompany andworld leaderin the productionof MIC based pesticides and the entire 

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199626design wasthat of U

CC under the DesignTransfer Agreement.The same was transferred to UCILBhopal.Thee

ntireplantofBhopalwassetupbytheUCCpersonnelsundercontrolandsupervisionandstartuppr

ocedurewasdonebyoneMr.WarrenWoomer,whoisthespecialistinMICandaChemicalEngine

erofUCCUSAandwasinBhopaltillDecember,1982cannotbeconsideredthatitwas designed o

n the similarpattern as that of the USA and the other plants of the  world. (ad)-

ThelearnedCounsel,Mr.AmitDesai,hasarguedthatthereportwhichhasbeengivenbytheteamo

fexpertsaftertheincidentandnotbeforetheincident,therefore,theknowledge that may have be

en acquired post a particular incident or event does not necessarilymeanthat theequipment 

upto that point of time wasdefective. Hequotedanexample ofa newmodel Car.Theremaybe 

a new safety devices that might havebeen invented,whichwere not availablein the oldmod

el cars, thiswould not render the old model cars as defectivecars.ae)-

Hefurtherarguedthatdefectswouldnecessarilyhavetobewithreferencetotheknowledgeofthen

ecessarytechnologyavailableattherelevantpointoftime.WhenthePlantwassetupatBhopal,the

rewasnoonlineanalyzerfordeterminingthequalityofMICbeforeitenteredinto the Storage Ta

nks coupled with an alarm system.  This argument is not acceptableas thesafetymanuals o

f theUCIL itself reveals such type of devices attachedto the concerningequipmentsinthePl

antasthepressureguagetemperaturemeterwasnotrespondingatthetimeofincident.Therefore,t

hecomparisonofaCarandafactoryrunningwithahazardousgaslikeMIC,Phosgen,Chloroform,
Carbonmonoxideisfarfetchedoneandholdsnowater.Thereforethereportoftheteamof Scientis

ts (Exh. P575, P805, P807),  can not be thrownout and discarded. Theyare the abstractof t

he studyof the expert Scientistsand not only fact finding reports.af)Section106ofIndianEv

idenceAct,1872isveryclearthatthefactswhichisspecificallywithin theknowledge of any per

son, the burden to prove them upon him.  The burden of 

27provingapleaspecifically set up by an accused,which may absolve him from criminal liabiliti

es, certainlyliesonhim,but,thequestionofevidencebywhichhemaysucceedindischarginghisburde

nislowerthantheburdenrestingupontheprosecutionestablishaguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonable

doubt.Sawal Das Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778 , Indore Municipal Corpn. Vs

Caltrex (I) Ltd., 1991 AIR SCW 250, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that

the

factswhichare withinthe specialknowledge of the party.35-

Theburdenliesonhimtoprovethem.Inthepresentcaseitisreiterativelysaidthattheemployeesoftheco

mpanyaretrainedintheinstitutionatVerginia,USAandthedesignofthePlantwas similar to that of th

e Plant at Verginia.  It appears appropriateto note that the visit of Verginia wasneverpermitted.S

othedesign ofthePlant atVerginia couldnotbestudied by the CBI.Thisspecificfactiswellwithinthe

knowledgeofUCILandtheManagement.However,noevidenceregardingthedesignhasbeengivenb

ytheCompany.InthiscontextacaseofShahgurmanmal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC

790 and

ShambhuNathMehraVs.StateofAjmer,AIR1956SC404,are verymuchrelevantin the facts and cir

cumstances of thepresent case.  36-

Asfarasthetrainingisconcernedthefactisfoundprovedthatonly25personsweresenttoCharlestonfort

rainingandhowlongtheyservedinUCIL,isuncertain.Therefore, therewas lack of training also.
37 The following major design defects brought to the notice of the Court: 

Theuseofhazardouschemicals(MIC)insteadoflessdangerousones.MICcanbemanufacturedwithou
tusingthedangerousPhosgene(COCl2)andChlorene (Cl2)
• Bulk Storing of MIC in large tanksinstead of small stainless steel drums or processingth
eMICasitwasproducedwithoutstorage.UnionCarbidePublications acknowledge that thebulkstor
age of MIC heightens the dangerof
28
both leakage and contamination.  

Possible corroding material in pipelines and in valves i.e. Iron , Copper. Zinc,and tin 
NoonlineanalyzeroralarmsystemwasprovidedtocontinuousmonitoringofthequalityoftheMICbef
oreitstoredinthetanks.OffgradeMICcanmixwithpreviouslystoredMIC,introducinglarge scalecon
tamination and great danger.
The refrigeration system was inadequate and no standby system was available.

• The VGS was not design to the emergency situation38-

Theproblemwasmadeworsebytheplant'slocationnearadenselypopulatedarea,non-

existentcatastropheplansandshortcomingsinhealthcareandsocio-

economicrehabilitation.Analysisshowsthatthepartiesresponsibleforthemagnitudeofthedisasterar

ethetwoowners,UnionCarbideCorporationandtheGovernmentofIndia,andtosomeextent,theGove

rnmentofMadhya Pradesh ,onlyinvitation to certain doctorsand otherhighofficialswas not enou

gh.

(A)OPERATIONAL & MAINTENANCE FAILURE :
(a)NATURE AND PROPERTIES OF METHYL ISOCYANATE (MIC) GAS:
The fact that the MIC is a highly reactive, toxic, volatile and inflammable chemical. It is an
organic compound with the molecular formula C2H3NO(H3C-
N=C=O).IngaseousformMICisheavierthan air and has a tendency to settle down. In this form it 
is subject to winddispersal.39Methylisocyanateisusuallymanufacturedfrommonomethylamine
and
phosgene.Thesesubstancesreactatarangeoftemperatures,butforlargescaleproductionitisadvantag
eoustocombinethesereactantsathighertemperatureinthegasphase.Amixtureofmethylisocyanatean
dtwomolesofhydrogen chloride isformed,butN-
methylcarbamoylchloride(MCC)formsasthemixtureis condensed and leavesonemole
of hydrogen chloride as a gas. X
ThemethylisocyanateisobtainedbytreatingtheMCCwithatertiaryamine(e.g.:dimethylaniline,
pyridine)orbyseparating it by usingdistillation techniques.

MethylisocyanateisalsomanufacturedfromN-
methylformamideandair.Inthelatterprocessitisimmediatelyconsumedinaclosed-
loopprocesstomakemethomyl.Othermanufacturingmethodshave been reported.
 (1)

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF METH

YLENE ISOCYANATE :40-

MethylIsocyanateisaclear,colourless,la

chrymatry,smellingliquid.Itishighlyinfl
o
ammableboilsat39.1 Candhasalowflas

hpoint.MethylIsocyanateissolubleinwa

terto610part per100 parts, but, it reacts 

with Water. It alsoreactswith its own m

olicules.

Molecular Formula

C2H3NO (H3CN=C=O).
Molecular Weight

57.05
Boiling Point at 760 mm Hg.

39.1oC (102.4o F)
 at 300 mm Hg.

16.7oC (62.1oF)
 at 
 10 mm Hg.

40oC (40oF)
Vapour Pressure at 20oC

348 mm. Hg
Soluble in Water

about 6.7%
Practical Temperature

218oC
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199630(2)CHEMICAL PROPER
TIES41Methylisocyanatereactswithwatertoform1,3dimethylurea and carbon dioxide
withthe evolutionof heat (325 calories per gram of MIC that reacts).X

At25°C,inexcesswater,one-
halfoftheMICisconsumedin9minutes;iftheheatisnotefficientlyremovedfromthemixturetherateoft
hereactionwillincreaseandrapidlycausetheMICtoboil.IfMIC is in excess,1,3,5trimethylbiuret
is formed along with carbon dioxide.
Compounds that contain hydrogen attached to nitrogen, such as ammonia or primary or
secondary amines,willrapidlyreactwithMICtoformsubstitutedureas. Other NH compounds,
such as amides and ureas, react much more slowly with MIC
Alcohols and phenols,whichcontainanO-
Hgroup,reactslowlywithMIC,butthereactioncanbecatalyzedby trialkylamines or
dialkyltin dicarboxylate.

Oximes, hydroxylamines, and enols
also react with MIC to form methylcarbamates.Whentreated withcatalysts,MICreactswithitselft
oformasolidtrimer,trimethylisocyanurate,orahighermolecularweight polymer.
Sodium methoxide, triethyl phosphine, ferric chloride, and certainother metal compounds catal
yze theformationoftheMIC-
trimer,whilethehighermolecularweightpolymerformationiscatalyzedbycertaintrialkylamines.Sin
cetheformationoftheMICtrimerisexothermic
(298caloriespergramofMIC),thereactioncanleadtoviolentboilingoftheMIC.Thehighmolecular-
weight-
polymerhydrolyzesinhotwatertoformthetrimethylisocyanurate.Sincecatalyticmetalsaltscanbefor
medfromimpuritiesincommercialgradeMICandsteel,thisproductmustnotbestoredinsteeldrumsort
anks.Oximes, hydroxylamines, and enols
alsoreactwithMICtoformmethylcarbamates.Whentreatedwithcatalysts,MICreactswithitselftofor
masolidtrimer,trimethylisocyanurate,orahigher

Sodium methoxide, triethyl phosphine, ferric chloride, and certainother metal compounds catal
yze theformationoftheMIC-
trimer,whilethehighermolecularweightpolymerformationiscatalyzedbycertaintrialkylamines.Sin
cetheformationoftheMICtrimerisexothermic
(298caloriespergramofMIC),thereactioncanleadtoviolentboilingoftheMIC.Thehighmolecular-
weight-
polymerhydrolyzesinhotwatertoformthetrimethylisocyanurate.Sincecatalyticmetalsaltscanbefor
medfromimpuritiesincommercialgradeMICandsteel,thisproductmustnotbestoredinsteeldrumsort
anks.
42Sodium methoxide , triethyl phosphine, ferric chloride, and certain other metal
compoundscatalyzetheformationoftheMICtrimer,whilethehighermolecularweightpolymer

formation
is catalyzed by certain trialkylamines. Since the formation of the MIC trimer is exothermic

(298calories per gramof MIC), the reaction canleadto violent boilingof the MIC. The high-

molecularweight-

polymerhydrolyzesinhotwatertoformthetrimethylisocyanurate.Sincecatalyticmetalsaltscanbefor

medfromimpuritiesincommercialgradeMICandsteel,thisproductmustnotbestoredinsteel drums o

rtanks.

43-

Therefore,admittedlyevenMICinitselfcanreactundertheinfluenceofacyatalysttoformacyclictimer

orahighlymoluclarweightpolymer.ThismaybecatalysedbySodiumHydroxide(NAOH).  Sodium 

Mythoxide, Sodium Acitate, Ferric Chloride and Stanic Chloride since the reaction isexotherm

ic,contaminationofMICwithtracesofthecatalystcancauseviolencereaction.(Ref.Exh.P576)44-

ManualExh.P576isundisputedlyissuedbyUCCitself,270ParkAvenue,NewYork,

N.Y.

10017.ItwasadvisedthathowtheMethylIsocyanatebestoredandhandled,Whatshouldbetheemerge

ncyprocedure,etc.EvenitisadvisedthattheMICoughtbestoredinsmalldrums.Thisshouldbeprotecte

dfromdirectexposuretotheSun,RainandSnow.Drumsshouldbeusedonafirstinfirst-

outbasis.MICshouldbetransferredfromonedrumtoanotherbymeansofNitrogenPressure.

 45-

Atpage7theprocedureforstorageofMIChasbeengiven.MICshouldbestoredinundergroundtanksof

StainlessSteelType304and316forsafetyreasons.Thesizeofthetanksshouldbekepttwicetothevolum

erequiredforstorage.Asanalternativeanemptytankshouldbekeptavailableatallthetimes.IftheMICt

anksbecomecontaminatedorfails,transferpartorallthecontentstotheemptystandbytank.Thetankm
ustbeundertheNitrogenPressure.Itmustbecleanedabilitytowithstandfullvacuum.Thetankmustbep

rovidedwithaVentLineandinadditionto that with an emergency Vent and the tank must be coole

dby oilsontheoutside wallsof the tank alternativelyMethyleIsocyanate(MIC)recirculatedthrough

aheatexchangersothatnoCoolantcanleakintotheMICandaCoolantmustbeselectedthatwillnotreact
o
withMICorcatalyzethereaction.The temperature of the MIC must be maintained below 15 C (about 
o o
60 F)  and preferably at about 0 C

o
(32 F).Thestoragetankmustbeequippedwithdualtemperatureindicatorsthatwillsoundanalarmandfl

ashwarning lightswhen thetemperature ofstoredmaterialarisesabnormally.Iron,Copper,TinandZi

ncmustbeexcludedfromcontactwithMIC,astheyarecatalystandmayresultinadangerouslyrapidtri

marization.It is clearly mentionedat page 9that althoughthe drums aretypicallystoredatambientt

emperature,however,bulksystemmustbemaintainedatlowtemperaturesothatthe possibility of vio

lentreaction can be eliminated.  
(B) STORAGE FAILURE :46-
MICwasstoredinaccordancewiththeOperationSafetyManualsasstatedbyPW62

T.R. ChouhanandGourishankerPW-

88werepostedinMICPlantatthattime.Theystateindifferentparagraphsthattherewereasafetymanua

lsExh.P912,.P-

913.Accordingtothesemanualsastoragetankcanbeusedupto60%ofitscapacity.Howevertheyadmit

incrossexaminationthatintheyear1983-

84whichwasincreaseduptothecapacityof80%,but,nosuchmanual,whichpermitsthattheMICcanbe

storeduptothecapacityof80%ofthestoragetank,availabletosupporttheaverment.OnthecontraryMr.

V.GaurishankerPW88referringadocument“DonotexceedTankLevelon60%”(Exh.P-

2606).Therefore,bareadmissionofT.R.ChouhanPW62incrossexaminationregarding the factthat t

hestorage ofMICinstoragetanks up tothecapacityof80%wastechnicallypossiblecannotbetreateda

saprovenfact.TRChouhanalsoprovedanumberofentries, which had been made in Exh.  P91247-
The witness is an expert of UCIL, as he hasvisited a number of times New York,Washington,B

oston,NewJersy,Philadalphia,Arbania.HealsotookpartintheRoundTableConferenceaftertheincid

ent,however,hesaidinPara26thathereceivedsomeinformationregardingtheVerginiaPlantwhereMI

Cisbeingmanufactured.However,heneverhadbeenthere.InPara27hefurthersaysthatthereareanum

berofdifferencesbetweenthesetwoplants.Astheaccusedpersonsareutterlyfailedtobringthetechnol

ogyusedintheVirgeniaplantofMICinthenoticeofthecourt.Therefore,theargumentadvancedbythele

arnedCounseloftheaccusedpersons can not be admitted asasubstantialevidence.48-

Otherwitnesses,whoareknowntobetheexpertsinthisfield,Dr.M.SriramPW-

48andDr.R.M.MashelkarPW49,inhiscombinedopinioninExh.P575,807&808.Dr.S.Varadarajan 

PW57,  in Para 2 says that storage in large quantity of MIC was quite dangerous. Therewasno

methodoffindingoutwhatwasinsidethelargestoragetankofMIC,astheywereburiedundertheconcret

e.MohanLalVermaPW-

60statesabouttheoperationoftheMICPlant.HesaysinPara2thatearliereightoperatorswereoperating

thePlant,however,attherelevantpointoftimewhen the incident took place, number of operatorsw

asdecreased upto 6 from January, 1983.49-

BecauseofthesepropertiestheMICisusuallyadvisedtobestoredandhandledinStainlessSteel of 304 

& 316of quality equipments.  Iron orSteel Aluminiums, Zinc orGalvanized Iron,Tin,Copperort

heiralloysareprohibitedfromcomingintocontactastheyworksascatalystandleadto a dangerous and

rapid trimarization of MIC that evolvedheatand canresult in a explosive violence.50-

Therefore,admittedlyevenMICinitselfcanreactundertheinfluenceofacatalysttoformacyclictimero

rahighlymolecularweightpolymer.ThismaybecatalyzedbySodiumHydroxide(NAOH).SodiumM

ythoxide,SodiumAcetate,FerricChlorideandStannicChloridesincethereactionisexothermic,conta

minationofMICwithtracesofthecatalystcancauseviolencereaction.(Ref. Exh. P576)51-

ManualExh.P576isundisputedlyissuedbyUCC,270ParkAvenue,NewYork,N.Y.10017, itself . It 
wasadvisedthathow theMethylIsocyanatebe storedandhandled,What shouldbetheemergencypro

cedure,etc.EvenitisadvisedthattheMICoughtbestoredinsmalldrums.Thisshouldbeprotectedfromd

irectexposuretotheSun,RainandSnow.Drumsshouldbeusedonafirstinfirst-

outbasis.MICshouldbetransferredfromonedrumtoanotherbymeansofNitrogenPressure.52-

Atpage7theprocedureforstorageofMIChasbeengiven.MICshouldbestoredinundergroundtanksof

StainlessSteelType304and316forsafetyreasons.Thesizeofthetanksshouldbekepttwicetothevolum

erequiredforstorage.Asanalternativeanemptytankshouldbekeptavailableatallthetimes.IftheMICt

anksbecomecontaminatedorfails,transferpartorallthecontentstotheemptystandbytank.Thetankm

ustbeundertheNitrogenPressure.Itmustbecleanedabilitytowithstandfullvacuum.Thetankmustbep

rovidedwithaVentLineandinadditiontothatwithanemergencyVentandthetankmustbecooledbycoil

sontheoutsidewallsofthetankalternativelyMethylIsocyanate(MIC)recirculatedthroughaheatexch

angersothatnoCoolantcanleakintotheMICandaCoolantmustbeselectedthatwillnotreactwithMICo
o o
rcatalyzethereaction.The temperature of the MIC must be maintained below 15 C (about 60 F)  and prefer
o
ably at about 0 C

o
(32 F).Thestoragetankmustbeequippedwithdualtemperatureindicatorsthatwillsoundanalarmandfl

ashwarninglightswhenthetemperatureofstorematerialarisesabnormally.Iron,Copper,TinandZinc

mustbeexcludedfromcontactwithMIC,astheyarecatalystandmayresultinadangerously rapid trim

arization.  It is clearly mentioned at Page 9 that althoughthe drums are typicallystoredatambien

ttemperature,however,bulksystemmustbemaintainedatlowtemperaturesothatthe possibility of vi

olentreaction can be eliminated.  53Among theother expertsDr. Sivaram PW127, Dr. A.K. Lahi

ri PW128,Dr. A.K.

MazumdarPW139,Dr.CSPIyyerPW158,Dr.ArshadAliKhanPW-

159alsocorroboratedthetheory.Onemorefacthascomeinthenoticeofthecourtthattherequiredpressu

rewasbuiltinthetank withthehelpof acopper tube (P.I.Bladder)A.VenuGopal(PW83 ) forthe trans
fer ofMICfromonetanktoanotherwhiletheuseofCopperetc.wasquitedangerous,astheymaytakepar

tinthechemicalreactionasacatalyst.SothefactisfoundprovedthatthestorageofMICinsuchahugequa

ntityspeciallywhenallthesafetysystemswereeitheroutoforderorshutdownforthisorthatreasonwasli

kelightingthefusefortytondirtybomb.Henceitis foundtobe provedthat thecompanyandthemanage

mentwiththeaccusedpersonsoverlookedthesafetymeasuresregardingthestorageof MIC in the tan

k.

(C) REFRIGERATION SYSTEM :

54-

ThefactorywasprovidedwithaRefrgerationSystem(30TR)tomaintainthetemperatureofMICinthet

ankthatiscalled30TR.Onthedateofincident,admittedly,itwasnotworking.Onthecontraryitissaidth

atitwasnotrequiredtomaintainthetemperatureofMICWhile(OperationManualExh.P2587)
o
(1984)suggestmaximum15 C preferably
o
0 CasstatedbyA.VenuGopal(ProductionSup. UCIL )PW 83. ThelearneddefenceCounselhasdraw

nattentionof theCourttowardsEx.D-

34andsubmittedthattheCommercialMICcanbestoredatambienttemperature.In February, 1979Sh

riA.K. Tauri underthe supervision of E.A. Borous prepared a reportExh.P.2644,TauriReport.At

page2itiscategoricallymentionedthattheCommercialMICcouldbestoredatambienttemperature.Po

ssibilityofpolymerizationisnilasMICisstoredintheTankwithsmallpercentageofPhosegen.Howeve

r,thereisnoManualPublishedbytheUCCandUCILfollowing the Touri report.55The team of the e

xperts hasgiven their report, accordingto which the temperatureoughttobemaintainedattheabove

mentionedlevelnotbeyondthat,asatthehightemperaturetheMIC startsTrimarization& Polymariza

tion.Defence witness,Vinod Kr.Behl, who wasthe thenSafetyManagerandisaChemicalEngineer,
o
inPara24speaksclearlythattheMICmustbestoredatatemperaturenotmorethan15 C preferably
 o
0 C.Forthisverypurposethe30TRChillerSystemwasinstalled and alsoadmits that it was closeddo

wn long before the incident.  56Mr.NareshChandAgnihotriDW-

5isanotherimportantdefencewitnessofthisfactthatwhetherthe30TRSystemwasrequiredornot?

WhetherthestorageofMICatambienttemperaturewassafe?

HespeaksthathewaspostedinMICPlantfrom1977to1989indifferentcapacitiesandhadbeenonspeci

altrainingforthreemonthsinUSA.InPara10hesaysthattherewasa30TRSystemintheUCILPlanttoco

oldownthetank,howeveritwasusedinthebeginning,butlateronithadnotbeeninuse.Thedirectionsfor

shutdownwasgivenbyProductionManager,

S.P.

ChoudharyandbyMr.WarrenWoomer,overallinchargeoftheplantattherelevantpointoftime.57-

InPara15oftheCross-

examination,thewitnessfirstadmitsthathehadgonethroughtheSafetyManualofUCC USA,howeve
o
r,he ignores the factthat MIC istobestoredat 0 C. InPara16hefurtheradmitsthatneitherMr.Ballal,

ProductionManagernoranybodygavehimwrittendirectionstoshutdowntheChillerSystem.InPara6

Mr.RaghuramanDW-

8saysthatwhenhejoinedtheUCILin1980,theRefrigerationSystemwasnotoperativeforcoolingthest

oredMICintanks.TheuseofRefrigerationPlantwasconfinedonlyfortransferringtheMICtochargest

hespotinSevinUnitorfordrumming.HesaysthatthisdecisionwastakenbyMr.WarrenWoomer.Heref

erredinhisstatementdocumentExh.D37toD46.InCross-

examinationinPara13bytheCourtitselfaspecificquestionhasbeenaskedregardingtheutilizationofR
o
efrigerationUnit.Hisanswerwas,asit was initiallythoughtthat the MIC canbe storedat 0 C temper

ature, later on he came to

knowfromhissuperiorOfficer,Mr.K.D.BallalthatMICcanbestoredatambienttemperature.A.Venu

Gopal,ProsecutionWitness-
83inChiefExaminationstatedthattheRefrigerationSystemisstillinworkingintheWestVirginiaPlant

inUSAandneverbeenorderedtobeshutdown.NowthequestionarisesthatthetemperatureinVirginiai

sverylowincomparesiontoBhopal,despitethatarefrigerationsystemexiststhere.WhileinBhopalitha

sbeenshutdownoverlookingthesafetymanuals.Therefore,withoutanydocument,theoralstatement

madebythedefencewitnessesthattheMICcanbestoredattheambienttemperatureisnotacceptable,,T

herewasnodirectionfromtheUCCorfromelswherethatthesaidPlantbeshutdown.Theaccusedperso

ns,namelyKishoreKamdar, J. Mukund, R.B. RoyChoudhary,S.P. Choudhary,K.V. Shetty, S.I.Qu

reshi,thosewho werelookingaftertheplantforyearstogether,beingtheChemicalEngineers,arefound

tobequitenegligentafterhavingknowledgethattheMICishighlyin-
o
flammablereactiveonhightemperatureand cannot bestored at a temperature of 39 C ,behaved wi

th grossnegligence.58-

Hence,thisargumentthatthePlantwasrunningwithoutaRefrigerationSystemfor2-

3yearsandnountowardincidenttookplace,cannotbepresumedthatthePlantwasrunningsafelyorthis

argumentthateveniftheRefrigerationSystemwouldhavebeeninoperation,itwouldnothavestoppedt

heescapeofhazardousgasesintotheatmosphereandhenceitisnotadirectandproximitycauseof the ac

cident in the present case, can not be accepted(D)`VENT GAS SCRUBBER (VGS)

59AnothersafetymeasurewasinstalledintheBhopalPlantvent gas scrubber.

(VGS)ItwasdesignedtoneutralizetheoffspecificationMICliquidfromthetank,thegasesfromRVVH
nd
,PVH,etc.Thesaidsystemwasnotcapableofhandlingthehugeescapeofgasesontheinterveningof 2 -

rd
 3  December, 1984. It was just designed to neutralizethe maximum of 7500 pound of MIC @2

1200pound/hr. It consist of a 5'.6” diameter scrubbersupported ona 21000 gallon accumulator. 

Asolutionof10%freecausticcirculatedat1200gpm.ItiscriticallymentionedinthedocumentEx.D-

34that thegases in casepressure inthesafetyvalveexceed about 12psig, theseal provideed byE 41
0Awillbreak.Thenthegasesbubblingthroughthecausticwillhaveapartialchanceofgettingabsorbed

prior to dispersion into atmosphere via the lineV4038”#183.60-

AccordingtothestatementsofTRChouhanPW62,AjayPradhanPW-

29isaworkerofUCIL,BhopalinthecapacityofPlantOperato(Documentreferred(Ex.P63andEx.P-
nd
64.,Ex.P912)anditisveryunfortunatethatitwasalsonotinworkingorderonthedateofincident,the2 -

rd
3 December198461-

The fact well within the notice of    Mr. S.I. Qureshi, Gaurishanker, Rajeev Kapoor, S.P.Choud

hary,VenuGopal,andR.V.ChoudharywerealsothereinthecapacitiesofSupervisor/Production Asst. 

/ Production Manager/Asst. WorksManager.62AjayPradhanPW-

29inpara5hefurthersaysthatattherelevantpointoftimeMICPlantwasinoperation.SupplyofMICtoth

eSevinPlantwasincontinuation.HehimselfsuppliedMICfromTankNo.611totheSevinPlant.Hever

yclearlyspeaksthatneithertheRefrigerationPlantnor the VGS and FlareTowerwere in workingor

der.63RajeevKapoorPW53isalsoatrainedperson.HeisaChemicalEngineerandworkedwith UCIL 

from 1979 to 1987.  At that time Mr. R.B. Rai Choudharywas Asst. Work Manager .Hewasover

allInchargeofthePlantMr.VijayGokhalewasMDofUCIL,KishoreKamdarwasVicePresident,Mr.J.

MukundwasInchargeofthePlantA.D.andMr.KeshubMahindrawastheChairman.S.P.Choudharwa

sProductionManager,K.V.ShettywasShiftSuperintendent,S.I.QureshiwasProductionAsst.Hehas

producedLogBooksExh.P809toP812,Exh.P861toP

866. Theentries thereofshowsthat he waspresenton therelevantpoint of time.  These entrieshave

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199640been made from 

1.11.1984 onwards.64-

InPara15hefurthersaysthaton2.12.1984FlareTower,30TRandVGSwerenotworking.  T

hough he said it wasin operational condition, but, it waskept shut down.  Noexplanati

on isthere on the partof accusedpersonswhy it was kept shut down / inoperational.65-
SumanDeyPW-

56alsosaysinPara4thatVGSwasnotinworkingorderthoughthePlantwasfullyautomatic.

ButhemadehisstatementinuncertainityinPara5.Herectifiedhismistakeand said that hem

ade an effortto start the VGS, but, for no purpose.66AVenuGopal PW-

83wasworkingin the year1984in theMIC Plant of UCIL Bhopal inthecapacityofProdu

ctionSuperintendentandhadatrainingin1979inUCCCharlestonWestVerginiaUSAforthr

eemonths,inPara4saysthatinFebruary,1984itwasdecidedthat30TRisnomorerequired.H

ehasproducedMasterCardfromdated25.11.1984to3.12.1984Exh.P-

2586.AccordingtothatFlareVentHeaderwasundermaintenance,andtherefore,outoforder

.HealsoproducedMasterCardExh.P-

2589.Accordingtothatfrom31.10.1984theVGSwasundermaintenanceanditwascomplet

edon25.12.1984.SoitappearsthatthePlantwasinoperationwithout a VGS.  67-

GaurishankerPW-

88wasalsoworkinginthePlantatUCILBhopalinthecapacityofProductionAsstt.Heisalsoa

MechanicalEngineer.OnthedateofincidenthewasinMICUnitwithMr. A. Venu Gopal, S

.P. Choudhary, RB Rai Choudhary, K.V. Shetty and Mr. S.I. Qureshi. In Para10hesays

thattheVGSwasnotinoperation.TejeshwarPW-

91inPara12hasalsosupportedthattheVGSwasnotinworkingcondition.Hereferredinhisst

atementMasterCardExh.P2583andanoteExh.P-

811atPage16.OnthebasisofthestatementmadetothePoliceu/s161Exh.D-

3thatthemaintenanceofVGSwascompleteby25.11.1984.Merecompletionoftherepairin

gisnotenough.Ex.34 page90in itself reveals the importance of this instrument.

68Therefore, the fact is provedbeyond a reasonabledoubt that Vent GasScrubberwas not oper

ational on the date of incidentand the accusedpersons whowere responsible for all the safety
measures, werenegligent about thisfact.  

(E) FLARE TOWER :

69-

ItisadisposalsystemofventgasesincludingMIC,Carbonmonoxide(CO)orothergases.Accordingtor
nd rd
eportExh.P575itissaidthattheFlareTowerwasnotadequatetohandlethesituationlike2 3

December,1984.Itwasnotoperationalonthedateofincidentassaidearlierby

thewitnessesaforementioned.Sothiswasalapseonthepartoftheaccusedpersons.Merelysayingthatit

wasadesigndefectastheFlareTowerwasinadequateinhandlingthesituation,theywerehelpless,isnot

sufficienttoavoidtheirnegligence.Astheywerewelleducated,qualifiedEngineersfromreputedinstit

uteslikeIIT.Soitcannotbeexpectedfromthemthattheywereunaware of the knowhow of the Flare 

Tower orthe other Systems. (F)NITROGEN PRESSURE :

70It wasthe conditionprecedent for the storage ofMICinthe storagetanksthatitshouldbestoredun

derpureNitrogenPressureof1Kg/Cm.Sq.Onthedateofincident,accordingtoDr.Sriram PW48, the 
2
Nitrogen Pressure was 0.25Kg./Cm .( Documentreferred Exh. P576). Apartfromthisthedifferen

tsafetymanualsofMICrevealsthattheNitrogenBlanketisimportantfortheMICStorageTank.71-

ItisarguedbythelearnedCounselofthedefencethatveryslightNitrogenPressurewasrequiredtostore t

he MIC,therequirementwas only totransfertheMICfromone tank toanother.Itwasnotintendedtop

reventtheentryofanycontaminant/waterintheStorageTanks.Itisfurtherargued by the learned coun

sel Sri D.Prasad that it was a design defect.  Mr. AgnihotriD.W. 5 Stated 
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199642that it was providedby the 
UCC that slightNitrogen Pressure is required forthe storageof MIC.  He referred a document 
D34in his statement. However it could not be explained that why slight nitrogenpressure was r
equired. Therefore ,the reasons givenby thewitnesses and theestablished principalof science reg
st
arding the pressure canbe considered .72In para 6 Dr. Sriram PW48madeit clear that till 21  Oc
tober,1984 the pressurein theTank610wasmaintainedat1.25Kgm./cm.sq.g.However,thenightshif
tof2122October,thepressureof nitrogenfelldown to0.25Kgm./cm.sq.g.Therefore the TankNo.61
0 was continued tobeunderpressurefrom22.10.84to21.11.84.ThepressureintheTank610asnearlya
satmosphericpressureon the interveningnight. Therefore,the possibility of entry of water into th
e Tank 610can notberuled out.  Asit is a principleof Physics that liquid goes from high pressure 
to low pressure.73Mr. J. Mukund in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. states that the nitrogen pre
ssure wasonlyfortransferringthegasfromonetanktoanother.ThelearnedCounselhasarguedthatnitr
ogenpressure only in use as a blanket above the MIC storage tank so that the atmospheric impu
rities couldbekept out.   74Dr.Sriram,PW48inPara6,asmentionedabove,referringbrochure(Ex.P-
576)statedthatthenitrogenpressurewasanecessitytokeepoutthecontaminantsfromenteringintothe
Tank.AgainShriD.Prasad,learneddefenceCounsel,arguedthatthesaidbrochure(Ex.P-
576)isnotmeantformanufacturers,itisonlyforretailers.Therefore,itcannotbeacceptedasamanualfo
rmanufacturing process.75-
ThebrochureismeantonlyforhandlingtheMIC.Thedetailedprocedurehasbeengiveninthebrochurer
egardingtheStorageTanks,NitrogenPressure,VGS,FlareTower,etc.Therefore,itsusecannotberestr
ictedonlyfortheretailers.ItisfurthersaidbyShriAgnihotriDW5that in thetankslight nitrogen press
ure wasrequired to be maintained.  He referred a document Exh. 

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199643D34, Design Rep

ort , to support his contention.  The documentis quite silen

t regardingthe fact that what rolehas to play the Nitrogen 

pressure. Shri Agnihotri DW5 himself no whereexplain th

enecessityof nitrogen pressure. Therefore,thereportEx.D-

34 does not appearsto befruitful to thedefenceregarding th

e nitrogen pressure.76Dr. Smasher, PW49, another expert 

of thefield states that the high pressureof waterthenthenitr

ogen, the water would enterthetank.  As it is an establishe

d theorythat the liquidflowsfrom the Higher Pressure to L

owerPressureand therefore, if the tank is kept under positi

ve pressure,the liquid would not haveentered.  At the rele

vant point of time the tank wasunderpressure (0.25Kgm./c

m.sq.g.). Therefore, thewater canverywell enter into the ta

nk,if was supplied at a pressurelarge enough to overcomet

he friction in the pipelines, valves andthe fittings.If it is n

ot sufficienttoovercome thisfriction, then it would not. 77-
 Aprudentmancaneasilyunderstandthatifatankcontains60

%-

70%ofliquidinside.Thepressurenaturallywillbeonthewallsa

ndatthebottomaccordingtothequantityoftheliquidinside. Fr

om outsidethetank, the entry of wateris onlypossible if the 

pressure is on a higher side.  Inthepresentcasethesameprin

cipleisapplicable.Pascal'slawstatesthatwhenthereisanincre

aseinpressureatanypointinaconfinedfluid,thereisanequalin

creaseateveryotherpointinthecontainer.Acontainer,asshow

nbelow,containsafluid.Thereisanincreaseinpressureasthele

ngthofthecolumnofliquidincreases,duetotheincreasedmass

ofthefluidaboveSotheentryofwaterwasonlypossiblewhenth

epressure fromtheoutside wasonthehigher sidethanthe pre

ssureinthetankorthetankmightbeempty.Sothecontentionoft

hedefenceregardingtheslightpressureof nitrogen. Thetheor

yis corroborated by other experts also.  

(G) OPERATIAON SAFETY SURVEY REPORT :

78It is arguedby the Prosecution that thePlant was runningwith various defects. Beforethisincid

entateam of experts headed by  Mr. Poulson from UCC USA came to Bhopal after the deathof 

Ashraf, an employee of UCIL in 1982.The Report(Exh. P2585) reveals that the Plant was runni

ngnegligently. On the contraryit is arguedby thelearnedDefence Counsel that the Plant was run

ningsafely withcareand caution, suchoperationand survey itself showsthat the Companywas bei

ng runprofessionally and it wasconstantly auditing itsfunctioningand operation of thePlant andt

heshortcomings, which were found bytheexpertswere rectified bythe Company andaComplianc
 e
Report(Exh. D1& D2) wassubmitted to UCC.79UmeshNandaPW-
87inPara6,9&10hasstatedthatcertainshortcomingswerenoticed by the team and the same weren
ever complied with. 
The shortcomings are:
Major
Less Serious

 1. Major a)Lack of reliableautomatic backupfor cooling waterontheCO converter shells. b
)Possibilitiesforairentry into the flareheader at theCO unit. c)-
Potentialsforreleaseoftoxicmaterialsinthephosgene/MICunitandstorage
areas, either due to equipment failure, operating problems, or maintenance
problems.d)Lack of fixed waterspray protectionin severalareas of the plant.e)-
Possibilitiesfordust explosions in theSEVIN area.f)Potentials forcontamination, overpressure,o
roverfillingof the SEVINMIC feed
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199645tank.g)Deficiencies in saf
ety valveand instrument maintenance programs.h)Deficiencies in Master Tag/Lockoutprocedur
e applications.i)Possibilitiesof nitrogen header contamination.j)Problems created by high perso
nnel turnoverat the plan, particularly in operations.The Reports(Exh. P2585)openingsummery s
tates79A-
Theteamwasveryfavorablyimpressedwiththenumberandqualityofoperatingandmaintenanceproc
edurethathadbeendevelopedandimplementedinthepast12years.Theseprocedures together with th
e SafetyAnalysis detailed for most operations ,constitute a major stepforallconcerned.UmeshN
anda(PW87)inpara6,9-
10statesthattheshortcomingsnoticedbytheteamwerenevercompliedwith.Onthecontraryitisargued
bylearnedCounselthatalltheshortcomingsnoticedbytheOSSTeamwererectifiedandthedetailedrep
ortExh.D1&D2wereforwardedtoMr.G.E.Merryman.ReportExh.D-
1hasforwardedtoMr.J.L.PaulsononOctober,1982byMr.J.Mukundinforminghimthatanactionplani
spreferredforthecorrectionofdeficienciesnoticedbytheteam,therefore,thereportappearstobeaction
planonly.Whethertheshortcomingswere rectified according to the plan and whether they were v
eryfiedby Mr. Paulson or somebody else,is not proved.80-
ItisarguedthatthesaiddefectshadbeenrectifiedbytheUCILandthereportEx.D1&D2weresubmittedt
oUCCthattheabovementioneddefectsarenomoreinexistence.Theonusnowshiftedontheshoulderso
ftheaccusedpersonsandtheyhaveutterlyfailedinestablishingthefactthattheshortcomingsnoticedby
theUCCwererectifiedwellintimeandtheUCCteamwassatisfied .Therefore, it cannot be reliedupo
n that thedefects wereactuallyrectified. Thelearned

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199646

defencecounselin his submissionhas refe

rred the courtstatementsof TR Chouhan (

PW62),RamChandra(PW 72),S.Bose (16

1) andKKParekh (PW164).However,not
 hing important foundin thestatements of 

these witnesses.

(H)POSSIBLE WATER  ENTRY :

81-

ThetanksstoringMIChavetobe,forthereasonsofsafety,twicethevolumeoftheMICtobestored.Itwas

alsoadvisedbytheUCCitselfthatanemptystoragetankshouldalsobekeptavailableinstandbyposition

atallthetimeforemergencytransferofMIC.MICwasalsoadvisedtobestoredinthestoragetanksundert

henitrogenpressureoftheorderof1Kg/cm2gandaspecifictemperaturebelow15°candpreferably0°c

wasalsorequiredtobemaintained.Howeverintankno.610theMICwasstoredundernearlyatmospheri

cpressurefrom22.10.1984,therefore,freepassagewasavailable for the entryofback flowof thesolu

tionfromtheVGS intothetank.Accordingtothereportofthecommitteeabout500litersofwaterentere

dintothetankno.610throughRVVH/PVHlines.Thethermowellandtemperaturetransmittinglinesw
nd
ereoutoforderforquitesometime andtherefore,notemperature was beingrecorded.82On2

ofDecember84before10.45PMnodeviationwasnoticedinthepressureofthetank610.Soonthereafter

inthenightshift,someoperatorsnoticedtheleakageofwaterandgases from the MIC structure and th

ey informed the control room .The  control room operator saw thatthepressuregoneupinthetank

610,thefactorystafftriedtocontrolthesituationbuttheyfailed.Thestorageandthetransferlineshaveto

befreeofanycontaminantsaseventracequantitiesofcontaminantsaresufficienttoinitiatethereaction

whichcouldbearunawayreaction,rapidtrimarization.Inductionperiodmayvaryfromseveralhoursto

severaldays.Thegenerationofheatmaycauseexplosiveviolence. In particular contaminatedwater 

reacts exothermically to produce heat
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199647
and CO2 . Consequently,thepressure in the tank rise rapidly if MIC is contaminatedwith water . 
The reaction may begin slowly, specially if there is no agitation, but it will become violent. All 
theseproperties of MIC show that despite all the safety precautions that could be takenstorageo
f largequantitiesof MIC in bigtanks was fraught with considerable risk.83RishiKumar(PW-
20)statedinhisexaminationinchiefthat,hewasondutywhentheincidenttookplace.Theplantwasnoti
noperation,ontheinterveningnightat12.30o'clockhefeltthe odour of gas and also tried to know w
here from it was coming andhe informed that Control Room.ControlRoomOperatorsawthatpres
surehadsuddenlygoneupinthetank610andfoundit wasoutofrange.Mohd.SaleemPW-
26andRahmanPW34,thetwohelperswereinvolvedinthewaterwashing activity.  GaurishankerP
W88 was supervising the same.84Mohd.SaleemKhanPW-
26wasemployedintheUnionCarbidesince1971andin1977hewaspostedinMICPlant.Ontheinterve
nd rd
ningnightof2 3 December,1984hewasondutyin the Second Shift. Mr. Rehman PW-
34 wasalsowith him.  Hewasan Operator.Mohd. Saleemfurther statesthat he was doingsome job 
and cleaning some valves through steam in the directions oftheSuperiorOfficers.In para 4 ofthe
Crossexaminationhefurtherstatesthat forhalfan hourhe didwaterwashingfrom8.00p.m.andcompl
etedby9.00O'clockandthereafterhewenttohishomeat

11.00 O'clock.85Rehman PW34, who was an Operatorand was supervising the water washing.  

Mohd.SaleemKhan,PW-

26inPara4clarifiedthathewasassignedtoclean4valves,thoughhecouldcleanonlyone,3valvesremai

neduncleaned,hesaysthatasitwasthetimefortea,therefore,hecould not clean the remaining3valves 

andleaving them uncleaned he went for tea to the Canteen.86-

HefurthersaysthatheremainedinCanteenfrom9.00O'clockto11.00O'clock,but,nobody is there to 

explain that when Mohd. SaleemKhan was deputed to clean all the 4 valves and

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199648was on duty till 11.0

0 O'clock, whyhe was sitting in theCanteen? It is theduty of the Plant Superintendent,who 

was an Engineerto look after such an important task of water washing.87-

Againthiswitnessstatesthatnobodyhasinstructedhimtoplaceaslipblindortochecktheisolation

valvewhilethewaterwashingwasgoingon.Amastercard,whichwasplacedtheretoassignthedut

iestotheworkersanditwasmaintainedbyanOperator,nosuchcardwasplaced.Therefore,itcann

otbebelievedthatbeingtheseniorsupervisingauthorities,thosewhowere present in the Plant a

nd were in the knowledge that if the entry of water takes place in any of thestorage tankor

elsewhere,wheretheMICisstored, theconsequencesmaybe hazardous. Hencethefactfoundto

beprovedthattheywerenegligentandwerenotlookingafterthisimportantjobevenafterknowing

theconsequences.Justtheyhaveleftthewholethingonauntrainedhelper,Mohd.SaleemKhan or 
the OperatorRehman.88GirijaPandeyPW-

28alsoanITItrainedFitterandwasemployedinthesamePlantattherelevantpointoftime.InPara3
nd
statesthatonthe2

December,1984inthepresenceofJ.Mukund,thethenProductionManager,Mr.Pillaiandsomeot

herOfficialsofUCIL,heplacedaslipblindinthePhosgeneTankandthereafterheleftforhisdinner

.AmastercardNo.6to55indicatesthenameofthiswitness,but,whomaintainedthiscardisnotclea

r.Therefore,themaintenanceofthesocalledMasterCardforfixingtheresponsibilityappearsnott

obemaintainedaspertherulesoftheCompany.InPara5GirijaPandeyPW-

28againsaysthattheplacingofvalvewasadangerousjobbecausethewatermayenterinthereactor

whileplacingit,asthepressure(10PSI)washighinhetank.therefore,the above defectsamount t

o the negligent conduct of the accusedpersons.89AbdulRehmanPW-

34isanotherwitnessofthissadstory.HewasanOperatorandsimplyIntermediate.Henowhereme

ntionedinhisstatementthatheobtainedanytrainingforhisexpertisein the field of MIC, theref

ore,hecan not be treatedan an expert and even then he was
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199649employed for such import
ant job. In Para 4 he averred that in the superintendenceof R.B. Roy Choudhary, S.B. Choudha
ry,J. Mukund, S.I. Qureshi, K.V. Shetty the maintenance workwas goingon. On the nightof inci
dent he wasonduty in SecondShift.  Gourishanker PW88as Supervisor. Mr.Gourishanker infor
med him ontelephonethat “Phosgene flow off”.  After the call by Mr. Gourishankerhewentto th
e Refriegration Plant where Mr. Gourishanker wassitting.  Mr. Gourishanker instructedhim that 
tryto findout from where the pipe can beattached for waterwashing.90-
InPara17heaverredthattill11.00O'clockinthenighthewasinthePlantandthewaterwashingwasgoing
onandthewaterwascomingoutfromallthethreebladderandnohelperwastheredoinganyjob.Hetheni
nformedtheSupervisor,Gourishanker.InPara12hefurtherstatesthatindownstreamlinehefoundabli
ndplacedthere,while,inRVVHupstreamlinetherewasnoblindand he was cleaning he same line w
ith pressure.91Mr.V.GaurishankerPW-
88statesthatheisaB.TechEngineerfromMadrasUniversityandwasemployedthereafterinUCILasGr
nd rd
aduateEngineer.Ontheinterveningnightof2   3
December,1984.Hewas on duty in theSecondShift from2.45p.m. to 10.45p.m. Documentreferre
dExh.P2604andhehandedoverhischargeat10.45p.m.toaccused,Mr.ShakeelQureshi.Mr. VenuGop
alwas also present.92In the Tank No.610 the pressure of nitrogen was 2 psig, that was below th
e normal andhemadeanentryinthelogbookatPage27(Exh.P-
nd
811)andsignedthesame.InPara14heaverredthaton2
December,1984aspertheProductionLogBookRVVHLinewascleanedwithwateruptoPSVFilter12
6,127and160asperthedirectionsofMr.VenuGopal.ThewaterwashingwasdonebyMr.SaleemandMr
.Rehman.BeforethewaterwashingRVVHisolationvalvewasclosedanditwasmastercarded.Thefact
ismentionedonPage30ofProductionLogBook(Exh.P811).

State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 19965093In Para 21 Mr

. Gaurishanker states that thewater washingwas going on.  Headmits 94-

NowtheCSIRReport(Exh.P-

575)istobeconsidered.Thereportrevealsthatapproximately500Kg.ofwaterenteredintoT

ankNo.610withsomecontaminantsthroughRVVH/PVHlinesandledarunawayreactionin

theTank610.ThereportsuggeststhatontheinterveningnightwhilethePhosgeneFiltersand

BranchPipeLinewaswaterwashing,thewatercould haveentered thetank.95-

ItisarguedbythelearneddefenseCounselthattheprosecutioncouldnotprovetheentryofwat

erthroughtheroutesuggestedbytheScientists.Asthisisanincidentofitsownkindinthe who

le world,and also pertinentto mention here that the UCC did not permit the Indian sci

entists toinspecttheUCC'sinstitutionalplantatVirginiaasreferredinthestatementofDr.M.

Sriram(PW-

48)inpara13ofcrossexamination.Therefore,thecomparisonofthecircumstancesisnotpos

sible.Itonlycanbeascertainedonthebasisofscientificstudiesaftertheincident.Eitherthey

maybeaprosecution orby the accused persons.96-
nd rd
ThefactthattheMICescapedfromUCILBhopalPlanton2 3

December,1984isanadmittedfact.ThewaterwasfoundinsidetheTankNo.610.Thisfacthas

beenprovedbythevariousreports.NowthequestionhowthewatergotenteredintotheTank.

Theonlytestistheanalysis of the residues of theof the TankNo.610. In TankNo.610 cert

ainsodiumor alkaline contaminants have beenfound and thesecontaminants onlycan g

o to theTank No.610throughwaterand no otherway is there they could enter.97Report 

(Exh. P575) revealsthat in theresidue of theTank610the Sodium was found.Itisanadmi
ttedfactthatthealkalinewater(causticsoda)wasusedtoneutralizetheventgasesincludingM

ICintheVGS.Itisarguedthatifthesampleisnottakenproperlythereportsregardingthe pres

enceof Sodium in the samples arehighlydoubtful.   

98Dr.M.SriramPW-

48,ChemicalEngineerandexpertofthisfieldstatesinhisCourtStatementthatateamofexpertsheadedb

yDr.VaradarajancametoBhopalandvisitedMICunitanumberoftimes,tooksamplesandstudiedtheca

usesofMICleakageandafterathoroughstudyReportExh.P-

575wassubmitted.Mr.GaurishankerPW88statesthatduringwaterwashing,tostopthefurtherflowof

waterslipblindswereusedaccordingtothemastercardandhedidnotrememberwhetherMr.Rehmanan

dMr.Saleemputtheslipblindswhiletheyweredoingwaterwashing.InPara 22heexpressed his inabili

ty in answering the questionthat how much liters of water entered intoTankNo.610 andwhatwas

thewayof itsentry. So onlyinferencecanbedrawnthat waterwashingintheplantwasgoingon,but,on

thebasisofthestatementsmadebytheabovementionedwitnesses it is not certain that how the wate

r couldhave enteredthe Tank No.610.99Theentryof500kgs.

(1100lb)ofwaterisanalyzedonthebasisofthequantityoftheMICpresentintheTankNo.610.Itwasnear

about42tonnesofMICinthetank610.Thebasisforthisquantity,itistheanalysisoftheresiduesandthec

hemistryinvolvedinthevariousproducts.Thesodiumwasfoundintheresidues,whichcouldnothavec

omeonlyfromordinarywater.Thewater,whichcomes from RVVH and RVH pipelines containing 

some sodium elements.100-

Dr.M.SriraminPara10veryelaboratelystatedthatifthewaterenterethetankwithcontaminants,asMI

Cisahighlyreactiveinthepresenceofcontaminants,aviolentreactiontakesplaceandthatmayresultina 

runawayreactions.Inpara11hefurtherstatesthat thisopinion was ajointopinionofthescientificstudi

esofthePlantgivenbythescientistsafterchemicalanalysisofthematerial. 101Dr.R.A. Mashelkar,P

W49, is alsoof the sameviewand hestatesin Para5thatentryofwateraloneintheabsenceofcontamin
antwouldnothaveresultedautothermalandautocatalyticrunawayreaction.500 lts. of water would 

have resultedinto reaction with 34 tonnesof MIC generating

CO2buildinguppressureandbreakingtherapturedisc.Hefurtherstatesinpara5theveryspecificreason

swhyandwherefromthewatercouldhaveenteredintotheburiedtank.610.Thepresenceofcorrosionpr

oductssuchasIrontrichloride,whichactsasstrongcatalyst,fortrimarizationdramaticallychangesthe

pictureandaautocatalyticreactionleadingtomajorMICleakagefromthetankaswasobserved,takespl

ace.(ReportEx.P808page1-

98).HeisofveryfirmopinionthatiftherewasapositiveN2pressureinthetankthewaterwouldnothavee

nteredintothetank610.Intheanswerofaquestionheagainexpressedhisfirmopinionthatwhenthewate

rwashingwasbeingdonewithpressurethewaterenteredtheRVVHandthealkalisolutionfromthevent

gasscrubberfindsitswayintothetank610.Heisofthefirmopinionthatitisawellknownengineeringfact

thattheliquidsflowfromhigherpressuretolowpressure.Therefore,ifthetank610werekeptunderposit

iveNitrogenpressurethewaterwouldnothaveenteredintothetank.Itiscorroboratedbythescientistsal

so.101A-

Pascal'slawisverymuchrelevantinthecaseathandwhichstatesthatwhenthereisanincreaseinpressure

atanypointinaconfinedfluid,thereisanequalincreaseateveryotherpointin the container.A containe

r, as shown below, contains a fluid. There is an increasein pressureasthelengthof the columnof l

iquidincreases,dueto the increased mass of thefluid above.Forexample, inthefigurebelow,P3wo

uldbethehighestvalueofthethreepressurereadings,becauseithasthehighest level of fluidaboveit.
If the above containerhad an increasein overallpressure,that sameadded pressurewould affectea

ch of the gauges (and the liquid throughout) the same.For exampleP1, P2, P3 wereoriginally 1, 

3,5units of pressure, and 5 units of pressure wereaddedto the system, the new readings wouldb

e6,8, and10. 

102Dr.A.K.LahiriPW128,whovisitedtheBhopalPlant.InhispresencetheburiedtankNo.610 was ta

kenout.  Hewas associated with the taking of samples of the tank. Two of the samplesthattaken

forchemicalanalysisandthereaftertheobservationsofmicrostructure.ThetestwerecarriedoutatHAL

,Bangaloreandhewaspersonallyinvolvedintheexaminationandafterthescientificstudies,consolida

teReportExh.P575wasprepared.Accordingtotheresultsoftheanalysis,thetemperatureof the tank a
o
ttherelevantpoint oftimeshouldbein the range of200250 Cas mentioned at Page 56 of the report.

103-

Anotherscientist,Mr.K.V.Mazumadaralsocorroboratestheviewsoftheearlierscientistsandheconfir

mstheconclusionoftheReportExh.P575givenatPage81.Incross-

examinationPara5hestatesthatheisworkingasManagerInstrumentationH.O.C.L.,whichmanufactu

resvarietyofchemicals.SomeofthemaredangerouslikeBenzine,Quolavin,Lathenol,SulphuricAcid

, NitricAcid, Hydrochloric Acid, Ammonia, etc.  Sothe witnessis very muchexpertof thefield.Iti

s arguedbythelearneddefensecounselthat inlarge industries thehazardous chemicalsuse to bestor
ed inlargequantitiescannot beacceptedin the presentcase astherewasa numberofdesign defectsan

d maintenance fault have beenproved.104Dr.C.S.P.IyerPW-

158alsosaysinhisstatementthathewasalsoamemberoftheteamofscientistsandsupportsthattheRepo

rtExh.P575wasaresultofstudies.Accordingtotheprocedure givenat Page28to 54includingtheanne

xures giving detailsof the procedure.105-

Thechemistryofthereactionsbasedontheanalysisoftheresiduesinordertoprovethepresenceofsome

ofthecomponentsleftoverinthetank.Aseriesoflaboratoryexperimentsconductedindetails,whichisg

ivenfromPage61to70.ThepossiblecausesoftheeventaresummarizedatPage75to81.Thesummaryo

fthecauseisbasedontheanalysisoftheresidueofthetank.ItiscorroboratedbyDr.ArshadAliKhanPW-

159,whotookthesamplesofthetankinthepresenceof CBI Officers.  The details of which havebee

n givenin Exh. P2899.   106Dr.ArshadAliKhanPW-

159furtherstatesthatapartfromthetankresidues,thesamplesweretakenfromblindflange.Safetyvalv

enozzleelbowwasremoved,processventheader,thermowell nozzle and some otherparts of the tan

k were removed and the core sample was taken infourbottles.Blowdowncommonvalveoftankw

asscrappedtocollectdepositedsolidsandthesamplesweretaken.Hefurtherstatesthaton13-

14February,1985inhispresenceandinthepresenceofCBIOfficers,certainoperationsofMICPlant,th

edetailofwhichhasbeenmentionedinExh.P2900 to Exh.P2905,were conducted.107-

Hefurthersaysthathemadeextensivestudiesoftheengineeringaspects,besidesstudyofthePlantand

Machinery,atUCILBhopalandafterallthestudies,heisoftheopinionthattherewereseveralaspects,w

hichwerenotasperthestandardforthesafetyofthePlantandPersonnel. Thedesign defects havebeen 

prescribedin the ReportExh.P575at Page71to 81.  He further states that there wasno stigma of q

uestioningthe purity of MIC before it is being transferred totheothertank.Thereisnoreasontodisb

elievethiswitness,ashehadpersonallyexaminedtheresidues of thetankand different otherinstrume

nts scientifically.  108Thetheoryof water entry in the tank is alsosupported by the defense witne
ss, AvinashBalchandran Paralikar, DW6, who took some samples of the residues of the tank E-

610 and get themanalyzed.Hehasgivenemphasisonthepresenceofsodiumcontaminantsintheresid

ueofTank

610.

Thoughhetriedtoestablishanewfact,keepingasidethewholechemistryofMICanditsreactionswithw

ater,sodium,etc.HeaverredthathewasemployedinUCILfrom1972to1987asaSenior Scientist.  Aft
nd rd
er the incidentof 2  3  December, 1984 he was assigned to analyze the residuesamplestakenou

tfromtheTank610.HereceivedthefirstlotofsamplesbetweenDecember,1984to March,1985 andSe

condlot in 1986.109-

ThesamplestakenoutfromthetankweresharedbytheCBI,CSIR,UCILandUCC.Hefurtherstatesthat

largequantityofwaterenteredintotheTank610andwithsomeofthechemicalsidentified.TheTank610

wasweighedonaweighbridgeintheyear1986basicallytoestimate the quantity of residueleft in the 

tank.  A memorandum (Eh. D35)of thisfact wasprepared.110-

Inpara6hefurtherstatesthatspecialprecautionsweretakentomakesurethatnosodiumlevelbeintrodu

cedinthesamplingprocedure.Thecleaningagentwereacidanddistilledwaterratherthansoftsolutiono

rtapwater.ThebottlesusedfortestingtheresidueweremadeofPyrexglassbottlesratherthansoftglassb

ottles,ashadbeenusedbyCSIR.Thesampletakenin1984-

85showsthelevelofsodiumbetween50to100ppm.Thesamplestakenin1986wereanalyzedinMumba

iFMCO.HehimselftookthesamplestoMumbai.Theresultwas,thesodiumlevelintheresiduesample

wasaround10ppmorless,whichiscomparativelyverylessthanthatofthe samples taken byCSIR tea

m in 198485.

111IncrossexaminationMr.AvinashBalchandranParalikarDW-

6standsnowhere,asnobodyaskedhimtotakesuchsamples.WhyhedidnotassisttheCSIRteam.Theref

ore,thetestimony of thiswitnesscan not be  relied upon.112-
ThepresenceofvariousmetallicconstituentsofIron,Chromium,NickleinadditiontoSodium,Calciu

m,MagnesiumThefindingsoftheCommitteeshowsmetallicimpuritieswerealsopresentintheMIC,t

hatindicatesthepossiblecorrosionofthematerialofconstructionofthetank,pipelines,etc.Presenceof

concentrationofSodiumindicatesthepossibilityofcausticsodaingressintothetankfromtheVGSthro

ughPVH/RVVH.Ifthenitrogenpressurewouldhavebeenmaintainedin the tank, no ingress of wate

r with caustic sodaor othercontaminants wast possible.  113-

Nowthefactorofrunninginlossofthecompanyappearstobeveryrelevantfactorintheabovecircumsta

nces.AdmittedlyBhopalPlant,asMr.KumaraswamyPW70,Mr.K.RamachandranPW-

72,Mr.UmeshNandaPW87andMr.KamalKrishnaParikhPW-

164hasstatedthatdocuments,whichwereregardingtheshiftingofBhopalPlanttoBrazil(Exh.P-

1334andExh.P1335)wassenttoMr.R.Natarajan.K.RamachandranPW-

72aCharteredAccountantbasedinCalcutta,alsostatestheplantwasrunninginlossesatrelevantpointo

ftime.Exh.P1332,whichissignedbyMr.Natarajan,co-

worker,basedinHongkongalsorevealsthefactthattheBhopalUnitwas running in losses.114-

UmeshNandaPW-

87attherelevantpointoftimewasMechanicalEngineerinUCIL.HealsoverifiesthatthePlantwasrunn

inginloss.KamalKrishnaParikhPW162inhisstatementaverredthat the Plant wasrunninginloss an

d because of that aneconomic drivewas launchedanditwasinstructedthatmanpowerbecurtailed,if

somepipelinegetcorroded,insteadofchangingit,itwas usedto be got repairedby welding or other

wise.115The data of UCIL reveals that Bhopal Plant was implanted and hadbeen grantedpermi

ssionbytheGovernmentofIndiaformanufacturingof5000tonsofSevinandTemicinayear,whilepeak

productionwasnearlyabout50%ofthecapacity.TheaccountsoftheUCILalsoshowsthat in thelast 1

0 months from the incident it was running in loss of nearabout fivecrore rupees.116-

Therefore,thereasonareverymuchclearthatapartfromthedesigndefectsthePlantwasnotmaintained
accordingtothenormsestablishedbyUCCitself.TheRefrigerationPlantwasshutdownlongbeforethe

incidentVGSandotheralarmingsystemswereoutoforderandtheaccusedpersonswerenegligenttowa

rdthisaspect.ThePipelineswerechockedandcorroded,Valveswereleakingand nobodywashardlyca
nd
ringaboutand becauseofthison theinterveningnightof 2 -

rd
 3  December, 1984 thehazard of this Methyl Isocyanate hadhappened.117-

ItisarguedonbehalfofMr.KeshubMahindra,thethenChairmanoftheUCIL,BhopalthatMr.Mahindra

wasnotconcernedwiththedaytodaybusinessoftheCompanyandprosecutioncould notprove evena 

singlefactthatMr. Mahindrawasrecklessornegligentregardingthe businessoftheCompanyhereinB

hopal.EvenMr.MahindrahadnoknowledgeaboutanyofthecircumstancesregardingtheescapeofMI

C.Theprosecutionismerelyrelyinguponthepresumptionthat by virtueof beingthe Chairman and 

Director of theCompany, Mr. KeshubMahindrais liableto beconvictedwith theother coaccused 

persons.118ThisisanadmittedfactthatMr.KeshubMahindrawasthethenDirectorandNon-

executiveChairmanofUCIL.Anumberofwitnessesviz.Mr.S.Kumaraswamy,Mr.P.Ramachandran, 

Mr.Subimal Boneand Mr.BhaskarMittalhavestatedthat Mr.KeshubMahindrawasneitherworking

inUCCnorworkinginUCIL,Bhopal.HeonlyusedtoChairthemeetingoftheBoardalongwiththeother

DirectorsoftheBoard.HewasnotconcernedwiththesafetyaspectoftheCompany.119It is further arg

ued bythelearneddefenceCounsel, Mr. Amit Desai that therewasateam of highly professional pe

oplefor running the Companyonday to day basis.  ExceptMr. KeshubMahindranootherDirector

hasbeenmentionedinthelistofaccusedpersons.TheCompanyhadawholetimeManagingDirector/D

eputyDirector,therefore,Mr.KeshubMahindrawasnotinvolvedorengagedinthedaytodayfunctions

oftheCompany.ThereisnoreasontoselectMr.KeshubMahindra asan accusedforhisprosecution in t

hepresentcase.120IntheAnnualReportsoftheCompany(Exh.P869toP-

878)Mr.KeshubMahindrahasbeendesignatedasChairmanoftheCompanyandreturnshowthathewa

sNonexecutiveDirector, thoughthefact is notdisputed.Section5 of theCompanies Act defines an 
Officerin default reads as under:
 “

For the pu

rposeof an

y provision 

in this Act, 

whichenact

sthat a Off

icerof theC

ompany, w

ho is in de

fault, shall

beliable to 

any punish

ment or pe

nalty,wheth

erbywayofi

mprisonme

nt,fineorot

herwise,the

expression

“Officerwh

oisindefaul

t”meansall

thefollowin
 gOfficersof 

the Compa

ny, namely

(a)
the managing director ormanaging directors;
(b)
the wholetime director or wholetime directors;
(c)
the manager;
(d)
the secretary;
e)
anypersoninaccordancewithwhosedirections
or

instructionsthe Board  ofdirectors ofthecompany  isaccustomed toact;

(f)
anypersonchargedbytheBoardwiththeresponsibilityofcomplying with that provisions;Provided that the 
personso chargedhas givenhisconsentin this
59
behalf to the Board;

(g)
where  any  company doesnothave  any  of  the  officersspecifiedinclauses(a)to(c),anydirectorordirectors
whomaybespecifiedbytheBoardinthisbehalforwherenodirectorissospecified,all the directorsProvided t
hat where  the  Board exercises anypower underclause
(f)
orclause(g),itshall,withinthirtydaysoftheexerciseofsuchpowers,filedwith the Registrar a return in the 
prescribedform.

121Thus,theprovisionsofSection5oftheCompaniesActarenotapplicableinthe present case, as itis not a ca

se of any offense punishable under the provisions of CompaniesAct,1956.122-

ItisfurtherarguedbythelearnedCounselofthedefencethatMr.MahindrawasresidentofMumbaiandhisoffice

premiseswasalsodifferentfromthatoftheUCILandbecauseof his high position in thebusiness community 

he had been appointed theChairman of theCompany.123-
Mr.KeshubMahindraVijayPrabhakerGokhleKishoreKamdaaraccusedpersons,whowerenotpersonallypre

sentinthefactoryandwasnotdirectlyinvolvedintheaffairsofthe Company regarding the operation and man

ufacturing of theSevin and Temik.124-

Section35ofIndianPenalCodeprovidesthatwheneveranactwhichiscriminalonlybyreasonofitsbeingdonew

ithacriminalknowledgeorintention,isdonebyseveralpersons,eachofsuchpersons,whojoinedintheactwiths

uchknowledgeorintentionisliablefortheactin the same manner as if the act was done by him alone with t

hat knowledge or intention.125Section 35 of theIndianPenalCode providesthat , there must be :
(i) an act which is criminal;
(ii) criminal knowledge or intention;

(iii) several persons

(iv) each person must join in the act withcriminal knowledge;126-

As thepresent case, theaccusedhavebeen chargedwith Section35readwithSection304-

A,336,337,338IPC.Therefore,thereisnoquestionregardingthecriminalintentionormens rea,in Indiaundert

hePenalCode only knowledge is enough .127-

ThelearnedcounseloftheaccusedpersonshasdrawntheattentionofthisCourttowardsthelawlaiddownbyHon

'bletheSupremeCourtinthecaseofAndaandothersVs.Steel  of  Rajasthan, AIR  1966SC 148and alsodraw

n the attention regarding the dictionary meaningof the word“Knowledge”.128-

InP.RamanathIyer'sLawLexiconIIIEdition,theword“Knowledge”asbeendefined as:

“Knowledge-

thecertainperceptionoftruth,beliefwhichamountstoorresultsinmoralcertaintyindubitable,appreh

ension.,information,intelligence,implyingtruth,proofandconviction,theactorstateofknowing,clea

rperceptionoffactthatwhichisormaybeknownacquaintancewiththingsascertainable,specificinfor

mation,settledbelief,reasonableconviction;anything with may bethe subject of human instruct

ion.

Conversely,theremaybeknowledgewithoutintention,theconsequencesbeingf
oreknownastheinevitableconcomitantofthatwhichisdesired,but,beingitselfanobjectofrepugnance

,rather than desire,and therefore, not intended.129The learnedCounsel of thedefencefurther dra

wn the attentiontowardsthe

case of Jai Prakash Vs. State, JT 1991 (1) SC

228,inwhichtheHon'bleApexCourthasheldthatknowledgesignifiesthestateofmantlerealizationwit

hbarestateofconsciousawarenessofcertainfactsin which humanmind remains supineor inactive

.130InthecaseofEmperor Vs Zamin (AIR 1932 Audh 28)

thewordknowledgehas beenexplainedthat it means: 

''stateofmindintendedbyapersonwithregardstoexistingfactwhichhehashimse

lfobservedortheexistenceofwhichhasbeencommunicatedtohimbypersonswhoseveracityhehas no 

reason to doubt.”

131ShriAmitDesaiandSriD.Prasadlearnedcounselsforthedefencefurtherargued that Section 35 

of Indian Penal Code does not give rise to any presumptiveliability.  It requiresanactwhichiscri

minalandknowledgethereof.ForthisherelieduponthecaseofAnda & others Vs Steel of Rajasthan

(Supra) In para 9 it is observed that  the word 'act' in all the clauses of S. 299orS.300ofthePena

lCode,denotesnotonlyasingleactbutalsoaseriesofactstakenasasingleact.Whenanumberofpersons

participateinthecommissionofacriminalacttheresponsibilitymaybe individual, that is to say, that 

each person may be guilty of a different offence orall of them may beliableforthetotalresultpro

duced.Thisdependsontheintentionandknowledgeoftheparticipants.ThesubjectisthencoveredbySs

.34,35and38oftheCode.Thefactsofthiscasealsotellsusthatalltheaccusedpersonswereengagedinru

nningofthefactorywithoutcaringthenecessarysafetymeasures orrather disregarding  the possible

consequences.132-

Thelearnedcounselforthedefencefurtherdrawntheattaintionofthiscourttowardsthe decision of  ho

n'ble the Supreme Court of India in  in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs Stateof Punjab, AIR 2005
SC3180in para 14 and 15 it is observedby the ho'blecourt that themoralculpabilityofrecklessnes

sisnotlocatedinadesiretocauseharm.Itresidesintheproximityofthereckless state of mind to thestat

eof mindpresent when there is anintention to cause harm. There is, in other words,a disregard f

or the possibleconsequences. The consequences entailed in the risk maynotbe wanted, andinde

ed theactormayhope thattheydo notoccur,butthishope nevertheless failstoinhibitthetakingoftheri

sk.Certaintypesofviolation,calledoptimizingviolations,maybemotivated bythrillseeking. These 

areclearly reckless.133In order to holdtheexistenceof criminal rashness orcriminal negligence i

t shallhaveto be found out that the rashness was of sucha degree as to amount to taking a hazar

d knowingthatthehazardwasofsuchadegreethatinjurywasmostlikelyimminent.Theelementofcrim

inalityisintroducedbytheaccusedhavingruntheriskofdoingsuchanactwithrecklessnessandindiffer

ence to theconsequences.134LordAtkininhisspeechinAndrewsv.DirectorofPublicProsecutions,

[1937]AC576,stated,"Simplelackofcare-

suchaswillconstitutecivilliabilityisnotenough;forpurposesofthecriminallawtherearedegreesofne

gligence;andaveryhighdegreeofnegligenceisrequiredtobeprovedbeforethefelonyisestablished."T

hus,acleardistinctionexistsbetween"simplelackofcare"incurringcivilliabilityand"veryhighdegree

ofnegligence"whichisrequiredincriminalcases.LordPortersaidinhisspeechinthesamecase"Ahigh

erdegreeofnegligencehasalwaysbeendemandedinordertoestablishacriminaloffencethanissufficie

nttocreatecivilliability.(Charlesworthand Percy, ibid, Para 1.13)135-

ShriAmitDesailearnedcounselforofthedefencefurtherstatesthatMr.Mahindrainhisexaminationu/s

313Cr.P.C.hasclearlystatedthatnoneofthematterswereeverplaced before the Board of Directors.  

On thecontrary the Board of Directors wereadvisedabout the excellentsafetyrecordsoftheComp

any.Thiscontentionisnotsustainableasrunningafactorywithanumber of hazardous substances like 

Phosgene Chloriform& MIC is not comparable job as that of adoctorasinthecaseofJacobMathe

w(supra).AshasbeenexplainedinthecaseofEmperor Vs Zamin (AIR 1932 Audh 28)

thewordknowledgemeans,''stateofmindintendedbyapersonwithregardstoexistingfactwhichhehas

himselfobservedortheexistenceofwhichhasbeencommunicatedtohimbypersonswhoseveracityheh

asnoreasontodoubt.”InthepresentcaseitisreiteratedthatthefactorywasruninthebesthandtheIITan

s.Thenthefactcannotbediscardedthat how the things aregoing on in the Bhopal plat would be

well within the knowledge of the accusedpersons .136-

Nowthequestionarises,thatwhatisthedictionarymeaningofchairmanandnon-

executivedirectorItisarguedbythelearnedCounselofthedefencereferringanumberofprosecutionwi

tnesseshavesaidthatMr.KeshubMahindra,anexcellentpersonalityofthebusinessworld,beingso,he

hadbeenappointedastheChairmanoftheCompany.HeisaNon-

executiveDirectoroftheBoardoftheCompanyalongwithsomeothers.HereIwouldliketomentiontha

tthereis utter respectto a persons intelligenceand his achievements in life. However, his   role is 

confined toaparticularcase.137Nonexecutivedirector–MeansaNon-

workingdirectorofafirmwhoisnotanexecutivedirectorand,therefore,does not participatein the da

ytodaymanagementof the firm. He or she is usually involved in planning and policy making,

and is sometimes included to lend prestige to

thefirmduetohisorherstandinginthecommunity.Non-

executivedirectorsareexpectedtomonitorandchallengetheperformanceoftheexecutivedirectorsan

dthemanagement,andtotakeadetermined standin the interestsof the firm and

its stakeholders. Theyare generallyheldequally

liable as the executive directors under certain statutory requirements such as tax laws. Also

called external director,independent director, oroutside director.138chair∙man(chârm

n)meansapersonorapresidingofficerofanassembly,meeting ,committee,orBoardhaving administr

ativecontrol over the same.
 139-
Anexcellentbusinessexperiencedperson,howcanbetreated,ashecouldbeunawareaboutthehappeni
ngsofthecompanies.AChairmanwithoutanyknowledgeofthecompanyactivities,howcanpresideov
erthemeetingsoftheShareholdersandhigherofficials.Howcanheinspirestheothers,havingnoknowl
edgeoftheactivitiesgoingoninsuchareputedcompanylikeUCC,UCIL,etc.Meaningtherebyleaving
aPlantinthehandsoflessexperiencedengineers,operatorsorhelperswithsuchhazardious,toxioussub
stances,isamountstorecklessnessandhighdegree of negligence towards the people, whowere eit
her directors or any other capacity, whatsoeveritwas.ItisclearlycoversunderSection35oftheIndia
nPenalCode,whichincorporatestheword'Knowledge'andknowledgemeansthepersonalknowledge
orknowledgeacquiredthroughthepersons,whomtheChairmanortheotherpersons,thosewhoareacc
usedinthepresentcasecannot distrustas envisagedbytheHon'ble Supreme Courtin the Caseof Em
peror Vs Zamin (AIR 1932 Audh 28).Noperiodiccheck-
upwasthere.HowthePlantwasrunning,asitisnoticedintheearlierparagraphsofthisjudgment,itisfou
ndprovedthatthepipelineswerecorroded,chockedandvalveswereleaking.Itispertinenttonotehereth
atV.N.SinghPW-
17,anOperatorattherelevantpointoftimewasworkingwithMr.S.I.Qureshi,informedMr.Qureshi,sa
ysinhisCourtStatementthatwhenhesaidtoMr.Qureshithat3bleaderareevenatthetimeofincidentand
theaccused,Mr.S.I.Qureshiwassayingthatitisteatime,afterenjoyingtheteahewilllookintotheproble
m.Meaningthereby, there was no command as it is expected from a talented, highlyqualified B
oard of Directors.
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199665Therewas no fear or disci
pline in the local staff.  Sothis is a caseof management failurealso.140-
Admittedly,Mr.KeshubMahindrausedtopresideoverthemeetingsoftheBoard.Itisnotexpectedthata
meetingoftheBoardcanbeheldwithoutthedataoftheCompany.What sort of technology hadbeen i
mported? What werethe safetymeasures of UCIL of which Mr. Keshub Mahindra was the Chai
rman. It isimpossibletorelyuponthatall thesethingswerenot intheknowledge of Chairman. Merel
y oral admission in crossexamination ofMr. S. Kumaraswamy PW70,Mr.P.RamachandranPW-
72,Mr.O.P.KocharPW106,Mr.SubimalBosePW161andBhaskarMittalPW-
171cannotbeacceptedasMr.KeshubMahindrawasnotresponsiblefornoneofthebusiness of the co
mpany affairs regarding the safety measures.141The safety manuals of the UCIL and apart fro
m this the report of the UCC (Exh.P-
2585)andateamofexcellentengineers,itcannotbesupposedthatduringthemeetingsoftheBoard,thet
hingsofsuchimportancewouldnothavebeendiscussedandtheaccusedpersons

remained un acquainted with the ground realities. if this contention is accepted as said even the

n theaccused persons can not be considered to be innocentas they knowthe hazards of the toxin

s usedinthefactory.Therefore,thefactsofthiscasearenotsimilarasthoseofthecasesofAnda&others(s

upra) andthe caseof Jacob Mathew (Supra)

142The other judgments cited by the learned defence Counsel are Ravindra Narayan Vs ROC,

Jaipur (1994) 81 Comp Cases 925.

Smt.G.VijaylakshmiandothersVs.SEBI(2000) 100 Comp Cases 726 have no relevanceto the fa

ct of this case, as itis not a case of offensespunishableunder various provisionsof Companies A
ct, 1956.

143It is furtherargued that there is no principle like vicarious liabilityin the criminal 

law.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtinaseriesofcaseshasreaffirmedandsettledtheratioregardingthevica

riousliabilityinrespectofoffencespunishableunderIPC.ThelearnedCounselhasreferredtheresentju

dgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofR. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta, 2009 (A) SCC

516

.InthiscaseithasbeenobservedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt,thatifthereisspecialprovisioninthestat

utetofastentheresponsibilitiesontheaccusedpersons,onlythenthevicariousliabilitiescanbefastenan

dnototherwise.Forthesaidpurpose,alegalfictionistobecreated.Evenunderaspecialstatutewhenthev

icariouscriminalliabilityisfastenedonapersononthepremisethathewasin-

chargeoftheaffairsoftheCompanyandresponsibletoit,alltheingredients laiddown under the statut

emustbefulfilled.A legalfiction mustbeconfinedto theobjectandpurpose forwhichithas beencreat

ed. InanothercaseofMaqsood SyeedVs.Stateof Gujarat(2008)5SCC668,theHon'bleApexCourth

asobservedthesameviewexpressingthatwithoutaspecialprovisionofvicariousliabilityinthestatute,

aManagingDirectorcannotbeheldresponsible.Similarview has beenexpressed in the casesofS.K. 

Alagh Vs Stateof U.P. and Others (2008) 142 Comp. Cases 228

144In the case of

Dobey and theMetropolitianBankVs.JohnCory(1901) AC477theCourtobservedthatthechargeof

negligenceappearstorestontheassertionthatMr.Cory,like theotherDirectors,withoutattendanydeta

ilsof businessnot broughtbeforethem bythe GeneralManager,ortheChairman,andtheargumentrai

sesaseriousquestion,astotheresponsibilityofallthepersonsholdingpositionslikethatofDirectors,ho

wfartheyarecalledupontodistrustandbeyondtheirguardagainstthepossibilityoffraudbeingcommitt

edbythesubordinatesofeverydegree.Itisobviousifthereissuchadutyitmustrenderanythinglikeanint
elligentdevolutionoflabour impossible.  WasMr. Cory to term himself into a auditor, a managin

gdirector,a chairman andfind out whether auditors, managing directors and chairman were all

alike deceiving him? That the

lettersof the auditors werekeptfromhim is clear.145-

FurtheronPage486itisobservedthat“Icannotthinkthatitcanbeexpectedofadirectorthatheshouldbe

watchingeithertheinferiorofficersofthebankorverifyingthecalculations of theauditors himself.  

The businessof life couldnot goonif people couldnottrust, who

are put into a position of trust for the expressed purpose of attending to details of manage

ment.  If Mr.Corywasdeceivedbyhisownofficerandthetheoryofhisbeingfreefrommoralfraudassu

mesunderthecircumstance that he was – thereappears to be me to benocaseagainst him at al

l.”

146InHuckerbyv.Elliottthatfactswerethese:MissHuckerbywasaco-

directorwithoneFrankSelwynLunn.TheyhadtogetherstartedagamingclubcalledWindmillClubsLt

d.FrankLunnwasadirectorofWindmillClubLtd.Andalsothesecretary.OneJohnBeveridgewasinfac

tthemanager.NoffenceunderSection305oftheCustomsandExciseAct,1952beingcommitted,inasm

uchaswithoutalicenceagamingwasarrangedintheNewEmbassyClub,thedirectors and the manage

r were prosecuted. FrankLunn the director secretary andthemanagerJohnBeveridgepleadedguilt

yandwereconvicted.MissHuckerby,however,didnotpleadguiltyofthecharge.ThestipendiaryMagi

strate,however,convictedherbyobservingthattoescapeliabilitybysaying,“Ihavedelegatedallmydut

iestoaservant”seemstomakenonsenseofthepositionofadirector.Anappealbeingpreferredagainstth

atorderofconvictionLordParkerC.J.didnotagreewith theaboveobservationsand observed as unde

rat Page193194:
“........Icannotthinkthatingeneralatanyrateitisthedutyofeachdirectorofa company to exercise so
medegree of control,to use thewordsin the oral judgment,
 State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 1996

 68over what is going on, or thereis nopoint in 

being a director; nordoI think it is rightto

saythatthereisadutytosupervisetherunningofthecompanyandinparticularacodirector who 

is the secretary.Counselfortherespondent concedesthat thesewords'attributable to any 

neglecton

the part of the directors' refer to the omission to do something which the director was

under a duty to do.  It is unnecessary to go through the cases,whichdeal with 

what differentcircumstancesmayormaynotbethedutyofadirector,butIknowofnoalu

thority for the proposition that it is the duty of a directorto, as it were, super

vise hisco-

directorsortoacquainthimselfwithallthedetailsoftherunningofthecompany.Indeed

ithasbeensaidbyRomerJ.in(ReCityEquitableFireInsuranceCo.Ltd.)6,1925Ch.407

thatamongstotherthingsitisperfectlyproperforadirectortoleavematterstoanotherd

irectorortoanofficialofthecompany,andthatheisundernoobloigationtotesttheaccu

racyofanythingthatheistoldbysuchaperson,orevento make certainthat he is com

plying withthe law.”

147The above observations have beenmade by the Hon'bleBombay High Court inthecaseo

fState of Maharashtra v. Shantilala K. Somaiya,

whiledecidingacriminalrevisionNo.31/1975on24.6.1975.Thefactsofthatcaseare,itwassimplyatra

nsactionofaGeneratorSetofSkodaCompanyandthecaseinhanddoesnotrelatetoanysuchtransaction

.SimilarlyinHuckerbyv.Elliottthedutywasassignedtotheco-

directorandwasagammingclubthatcanbelookafterbyaperson,therewasnostorageofhazardousgase
slikePhosgene,MIC,Chloroform,therefore,thedegreeofstandereishighinthecaseinhandandthefact

softhecasearedistinguishable.The report of CSIR hasnoticed a numberof design and maintenan

ce failures.

AccordingtothedifferentmanualsofUCILitselfrevealthatthedecisionwastakenbytheBoardofDirec

torsandthehigherauthoritiesoftheCompanyandnotbythesuboridnatestaff.Tolookafterthemaintena

nceofthefactory,thoughjobtheengineerslocallyemployed,however,thecontroloverthemisthatofthe

Management.Asthecompanywasdealingwiththemanufacturingofpesticideswiththehelpofhazard

uoussubstances.Everybodywaswellawarewiththefactthatincaseofanynegligence, the incident as 
nd rd
tookplace on 2 3  December, 1984,mayhappenand for thesereasons

theresponsibilitycannot beshiftedonthe shoulders of theothers.Therefore,the factsof the case in

hand are distinguishable.148The present caseis not a case of fraud or a deceit of the subordinat

e officers oftheUCIL.ItcannotbesupposedtobeanactofGod,ifsothenitmaybeassumedthatthefactor

ywasrunbytheAlmightyGodandwhosemistakeornegligencethehazardoftoxiousMIChadhappene
rd
d in thecity of Bhopal onthe night of 2nd3  Dec.1984.

149-

ThelearnedCounselofthedefencefurtherdrawntheattentionofthisCourttowardsthedecisionofMala

ykumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, 2009 SCC

221. Thefactsofthiscaseinbriefarethat a patientwasachildPsychologistand herhusbandwasaDoct

orengagedinresearchofHIV/AIDSinUSA.BothofthemcametoIndiainMarch-

April1988,whilestayinginKolkatathepatient,ChildPsychologistcomplaintofskinrashsometimeint

hethirdweekofApril,1998,forwhichbothofthemconsultedtotheDr.SukumarMukherjee,whoadvise

dthemtorest,but,didnotprescribeanymedicine.However,on7.5.1998rashappearedmoreaggressive

ly,andtherefore,theladyChildPsychologistwereagaintakentotheDoctorfortreatment.ThistimeDr.
Mukherjeeprescribedinjectionof80mg.,Depomedroltwicedailyfornext3days.Onassuming that it 

was a case of Vasculities, the condition of lady did not improve and ultimatelyshewasadmittedt

otheHospital(AMRI)on11.5.1998underthesupervisionofDr.Mukherjee.Onthenextdayanotherdoc

toralsocameandfoundthattheladyissufferingfromToxicEpidermalNecrosis(TEN).

150-

DespitethetreatmentofseveraldoctorsintheHospital,thelady'sconditiondeterioratedandultimately

shiftedtoBombayon17.5.1998byAirAmbulance.Sheimprovedfortwodays, but, unfortunatelyon2

8.5.1998 the lady got expired and a criminalcase wasfiledby her

husband against the Doctors u/s  304A IPC.151-

Thecriminalcourtfoundsomeofthedoctorsguiltyofcriminalnegligence,but,theHighCourtreversedt

hedecisionandmattercametotheHon'bleSupremeCourt.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtwasoftheviewt

hatthepatientwasdeadduetothenegligenceofsomeofthedoctors,treatingthepatientattheHospital.In

theinstantcase,negligentactionhasbeennoticedin

respecttomorethanonerespondent.Acumulativeincidence,therefore,hasledtopatient'sdeath.Doctri

ne of CumulativeEffect (Doctrine of Aggregation) is not available in criminal law.152-

Standardofproofasalsoculpabilityrequirementsu/s304AoftheIPCstands

on altogether different footings.  On comparison the provisions of IPC with thresholds under to

rt law orConsumerProtectionAct,afundamentalthatattributesofcareandnegligencearenotsimilaru

ndercivilandcriminalbranchesofmedicalnegligencelaw,isborneout.Anactwhichmayconstitutene

gligenceor even rashness under torts may not amount to thesame under Section 304A of IPC.  

153In is not necessary that what negligent conduct in civil law may bea negligenceincriminalla

wforanoffence.Theremustalwaysbeanelementofmensreaforanoffence.Thedegree of negligences
hould bemuchhigherin criminal negligence than he degreeforaction in civil
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199671 law. 154-
Negligenceisabreachofdutymaybecausedbyomissiontodosomething,whichareasonablemanguid
edbythosecircumstances,whichordinarilyregulateconductofhumanaffairswoulddo,ordoingsomet
hing,whichaprudentorreasonablemanwouldnotdo.Negligencemeanseithersubjectivelyacarelesss
tateofmindorobjectivelycarelessconducts.Itisnotanabsolute term, butis relative one,it is rather a 
comparative term.  All these facts aught to be taken in considerationwhiledeterminingtheneglig
encewhetherexistinaparticularcase.mensreahasnoplaceforanoffencelike304-
A,336,337and338ofIPC,theknowledgeisenoughtoconstitutetheoffence.155In thepresentcasethe 
conduct of the directors andthe engineers of thefactory,thougheverybodycannotbeidentified,fou
ndprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheyneglectedthedeteriorationsreportedtothembytheUSTea
mandbythethelocalemployees.Themaintenancewaspoor.Someimportantsystemswerefoundtobes
hutdownformonthstogether.MICwasstoredinhugequantity(42tons),whiletherequirementforman
ufacturingofTemikandSevinwasveryless(3-
4tons).WhilethePlantwasshutdownformaintenance.Thiswasanomission onthe part of the Manag
ement, the US team wasalso silent aboutsome of the above facts.Adoctor'snegligenceandneglig
enceoffactorymanagementisquitedifferent,Thedegreeofnegligenceismuchhigherintheinstantcase
,hencethereisnocomparisonbetweenthesetwocases.156-
ItisarguedbythelearneddefenceCounselthattheconvictioncannotbesolelybasedon the opinion of t
he experts, asin the present case.

157-

ThoughareporthasbeensubmittedbytheCSIRexperts,otherwisealsotheprosecutionledanumberof

witnesses,whowereworkingattherelevantpointoftimeinthefactory.Theirdetailedstatements,thoro

ughlyexplainedintheforegoingparagraphsofthisjudgments.Therefore,it is not required  to reitera

te them. 

158Section 45 of the Evidence Act says when the Court has to form an opinion

upon a point of foreign law or of scienceor art, or asto identityof handwritingor finger impressi

ons,theopinionuponthatpoints,personsspeciallyskilledinsuchforeignlaworofscienceorart,orastoi

dentity of handwriting orfinger impressions, arerelevant facts.  

159-

Inthepresentcaseateamofexpertengineersspeciallyskilledinchemicalengineeringworkingwithrep

utedinstitutionsinmuchhighercapacitieshadinspectedthePlantpersonallyandafteranalysingtheresi
duesanddifferentdivisionsofBhopalUCILPlant,preparedreports(Exh.P575,(Exh.P-

807,and(ExhP808)andtheyhavebeendulyprovedintheCourtbytheevidence of the experts, as men

tionedin the foregoing paragraphs.

160Theattention hasbeeninvited bythe learned counsel forthe accusedpersonstothedecisionsoft

hehon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofKurbanHusseinMohammedAliRangwallav.StateofMaharashtra

,AIR1965SC1616,brieffactsofthecaseare,afactorywaslicensedoncertainconditionstomanufactur

epaints.Themanagerandtheworkingpartnerdidnothavealicenseformanufacturingwetpaintsbutnev

erthelessthefactorymanufacturedthem.Certainburnerswereusedforthepurposeofmeltingrosinorbi

tumenbyheatingtheminbarrelsandaddingturpentinetheretoafterthetemperaturecooleddowntoacer

taindegree.Whilethisprocesswasgoing on froth overflowed out of the barreland becauseof heat, 

varnish andturpentine which were

storedatashortdistancecaughtfireandresultedinthedeathofsevenpersonsworkinginthefactory.The

questionwaswhetherthemanagerandtheworkingpartnerofthefirmwhichrunthefactory wasguilty u

nder Ss. 304A and 285of the Indian Penal Code. 

161Itwasheldthatthemerefactthattheburnerswereallowedtobeusedinthesameroomin whichvarnis

h and turpentinewerestoredeven though it mightbe anegligent actwouldnotbeenoughtomakethe

appellantbeforethiscourtresponsibleforthefirewhichbrokeout.Thecauseof the fire,it wasobserve

d,wasnotmerely the presence of burnersin the room in which the 

varnishandturpentinewerestoredthoughthiscircumstancewasindirectlyresponsibleforthefirewhic

hbroke out. The requirement of S. 304A was the causing of death by doingany rash ornegligent

actandthismeantthatthedeathmustbethedirectorproximateresultoftherashornegligentact.Itwasfou

ndthatthedirectorproximatecauseofthefirewhichresultedinsevendeathswastheactofalaborerwhoa

ctedinahurryandwhodidnotwaituntilthebitumenorrosincooleddownandthusitwashisnegligencew
hichwasthedirectandproximatecauseofthefirebreakingout.Theappellant,namelythemanagerandt

heworkingpartnerofthefirmcouldnotbeheldtohavecommittedtheoffence under S. 304Aof the Co

de.

162The ratio of the above decision was applied in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of

Maharashtra,AIR1968SC829.Inthatcasethequestionwaswhetherthefirstappellantwhohadonlyale

arner'slicenceandwasdrivingajeepwhichknockeddownthedeceasedhadbeenrightlyconvictedofan

offenceunderS.304-

AoftheIPCreadwithcertainprovisionsoftheMotorVehiclesAct.Onthematerialontherecordthecourt

founditimpossibletodiscoverunderwhatcircumstancestheaccidenthadtakenplace.Thecourtheldth

atitwasnotknownwhatwastheproximate cause of theaccident andthepossibility that it had been c

aused dueto the fault of the

deceasedcouldnotberuledout.Themerefactthattheappellantinquestionheldalearner'slicencedidnot

establishthathedidnotknowdriving.Hisproficiencymightfurnishadefensewhichthelearnercouldno

thavebuttheabsenceofproficiencydidnotmakehimguilty.HisconvictionunderS.304A was therefor

e set aside. 

163-

Thefactsofthepresentcasearesomewhatdifferentanddistinguishablefromthoseoftheabovetwocase

saswillbeclearfromacloseexaminationofthematerialevidencerelatingto the substances which we

re being used in the manufactureof the fireworksetc. in the 

factoryoftheappellants.Thefactorywassituatedincloseproximitytoresidentialquarters.Itbecameth

ereforeallthemoreincumbentontheappellantstohavecompletelyavoidedtheuseofhighlysensitive c

ompositionsof the nature mentioned above.

164-
ThedecisionwhichisappositetothepresentcaseistheRustomSheriorIraniv.StateofMaharashtra,Cri

minalAppealNo.72of1965,D/34-

1968(SC).Therethechimneyofabakeryhadcollapsedand11personswerekilledandcertainpersonsw

ereinjured.Theappellanthadsubmittednoplanforthealterationofthechimneyforthethirdtimeandha

daskedjusta mason to remove the iron pipe which had corroded and to bring the height of the c

himney to 65 feet.Themasonhadtoldhimthatwhiletheworkwasbeingexecuteditwasunnecessaryto

completelykeepthebakeryclosedexceptduringtheperiodtherepairworkwasbeingdone.Afterthechi

mneyfell down a numberof officersvisitedthe spotand inspected thebakery. The Chief Inspector 

of Boilerswas of the opinionthat the cause of the collapse of the chimney was the explosion wh

ich occurred in itbecauseoftheproductsofcombustionandgasesnotbeingpermittedtoescapefreelya

sapipeof6inchesdiameterhadbeenputinsteadof12inchesdiameter.Itisunnecessarytorefertothedeta

ileddiscussion of the evidence. It wasestablished that theconstruction of thenewchimney hadbe

en

done withouttheadvice of a properly qualified person. Theargument raised wasonthelines simil

ar tothe one which had been advancedin (1965) 2 SCR 622 = (AIR 1965 SC 1616). Itwas main

tained thatnonegligenceonthepartoftheappellanthadbeenestablishedanditwasonaccountoftheneg

ligenceofthemasonthatthechimneyhadfallendown.Thiscourtwasoftheviewthattheproximateande

fficientcauseofthedeathswasthenegligenceoftheappellantinchoosingapipeof6inchesdiameterand

askingamason(whowasapparentlynotaqualifiedperson)tocarryoutthealterations and alsocontinui

ng working at least one over there during the period while the alterations

to the chimney were being made. 165Bhalchandra and another, v. The State of Maharashtra,

AIR 1968 SC 1319 theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthattheappellantswhowerelicense-

holdersformanufacturingexplosiveinthefactorywereliabletobeconvictedunderSs.304-
Aand337IPCalthoughtherewasnodirect evidence of the immediate cause of the explosion. The 

manufacturers undoubtedlydisplayedahighdegreeofnegligencebyallowingorcausingtobeusedex

plosivesofsensitivecompositionsandsubstancesinthemanufacturingoffireworks,whichmustbethe

efficientcauseofexplosion.Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616 and

Suleman Rahiman Mulani

v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829,  distinguished. 166In the case of

Bhalachandra(supra)thehon'bleSupremeCourtreferredwithapprovalto whatwas saidbyStraightJ. 

inEmpressofIndiav. InduBeg.(1881) ILR3All776thatcriminalnegligenceis thegross and culpabl

e neglect or failureto exercisethat reasonable andpropercareandprecautiontoguardagainstinjury

eithertothepublicgenerallyortoanindividualin

particular,whichhavingregardtoallthecircumstancesoutofwhichthechargehasarisen,itwastheimpe

rative duty of the accused personto have adopted.

167In Queen Empress v. Bhutan, (1894) ILR 16 All

472thelesseeofagovernmentferryhavingtheexclusiverightofconveyingpassengersacrossacertainr

iverwasheldtobeguiltyunderS.304-

Awhenhehadcommittedthenegligentactofputtingaboatintheferrywhichwasinanunsafeconditiona

ndwhichsunkresultinginsomeofpersonsgettingdrowned.ThePunjab Chief Courtfounda person g

uilty underSs. 304Aand338inKamruddin v. KingEmperor,1905PunRe22(Cr

)whenhehadconsignedtwoboxescontainingfireworkstotheRailwayfalselydeclaringthem to conta

in ironlocks with the resultthat in loading one of theboxesexploded killing 

one coolie and injuring another. The inadvertence to the results of concealing the true character 

of thecontentsoftheboxwhichwasthefailureofdutytothepublicatlargeandtheknowledgeofthedang

erousnatureofthecontentswhichmustbeinevitablypresumedcoupledwiththeconsequenceswere re
garded asconstitutingacompleteoffence under the sections.

168-

Inviewofthefactthatthefactorywassituatednearresidentialquarters(asinthepresentcase)andthatmo

stlywomenandchildrenbelow18yearshadbeenemployeditwasallthemoreincumbentonthemanufa

cturertohavecompletelyavoidedtheuseofhighlysensitivecompositions.

169-

Theprincipalcontentiononbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsisthatevenonthefactsfounditisnotpossibleto

holdthattheyareresponsiblefortheexplosionorhaddoneanythingwhichcouldberegardedasaCausa

causan,directandimmediatecauseoftheescapingofMIC.Thus,criminalliabilitycouldnotbeimpose

donthemunderSs.304-

Aand337oftheCodeasithasnotbeenestablishedthatthedeathsorinjuriescausedwerethedirectresulto

fanyrashornegligentact on the partof the accusedpersons or that any such act had been proved 

which wasthe proximateand efficient cause of theescaping of MIC without the intervention of a

nother's negligence.

170-

TheaccusedpersonscommittedanumberofhazardousbreachesoftherulesframedundertheActandth

econditionsofthelicencesissuedtothem.Thus,itwaspointedout,showedacallous disregard for the s

afety of the employees (as in thepresentcase).

171Adverting to English law the case of Reginav.DavidDant,

(1865)169ER1517 is highlyinstructive. This is what Erle C. J., observed:
 "The defendant turned a dangerous animal on to a commonwheretherewasa publicfootpath.
This hasbeen foundbythejury tobeculpablenegligence, andthechild'sdeathwascausedbyit.Ordi
narilyspeakingthesearealltherequisitesofmanslaughter.Itiscontended,however,thatnooffencewas
committed,becauseaswemusttakeit,thechild wasnotonthepath, thejuryhaving foundthatit was v
ery near,butthattheycouldnotsaywhetheritwasonoroff.Inmyopinionthedefendantisresponsiblefor
havingbroughtsogreatadangeronpersonsexercisingtheirrighttocrossthecommon;anditisnotagro
undofacquittalthatthechildhadstrayedfromthepath."172Inanothercase,Rex v. Pitt wood (1902)
19 TLR 37
theprisonerwaschargedwithmanslaughteronthegroundthathehadbeennegligentinnotclosingagat
ewhenatrainpassedwhichitwashisdutytodowiththeresultthatWhitewhowasinahaycartwaskilled 
whilethecart was struckbythetrainwhichcamewhen it wascrossing theline.Wright J., was of th
e opinion that the prisonerhad been guilty of grossand criminal negligenceas he was paid t
o keepthegateshutwhen the train came andprotect the public. It was a clearcase of misfeasa
nce as the prisonerdirectly contributed to theaccident andhewas guiltyof 
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 1996

78manslaughter.173-

InRvH.M.CoronalforEastcanEx.p.Spooner[1989]88Cr.App.R.10VingamL.J.“foracompanytobe

criminallyliableformanslaughter...itisrequiredthatthemensreaandtheactusreusormanslaughters

houldbeestablished......against those whowere to be identified as the embodiment of thecomp

anyitself.  

174Alltheabovecasesshowthatcriminalnegligencecanbefoundonvarying

sets of circumstances. The tests which have been applied appearto be fullyapplicable to the 

facts of thepresentcaseincludingtheoneofdirectandefficientcause.Theappellantshad,undoubtedl

ydisplayedahighdegreeofnegligencebyallowingorcausingtobeuseddangerousandprohibitedcom

positions andsubstanceswhichmust beheldto have beentheefficientcauseof the explosion

175-

InfurtheranceofhisargumentsthelearnedCounselofthedefencearguedthatthedirectandproximatec
nd rd
auseoftheincidentof2 3 December,1984wasthecarelessnessofonehelperMohd.SaleemPW-

26,whodidnotaffixaslipblind,whileundertakingwaterwashing,whichresultedintotheallegedentry

ofwaterintoTank610.ThiscarelessnessofMohd.Saleemcannotbeattributedtoanyoftheaccusedpers

ons.HeplacedrelianceonthedecisiongivenbytheCentralCriminalCourtOldBaileyLondoninthecas

eofRegina V. Great Western Trains Company

Limited.TheremustbealawonsimilarfootingsasthatoftheBritishLawthehealthandSafetyAct1974.I
nbriefthefactsofthiscaseareGreatWesternTrainsCompanyLimited(inbriefGWT)isalimitedliabilit

ycompanywithatthematerialtimeanannualturnoverinexcessof₤300million.Itoperatesunderafrenc

hiseafleetofhighspeedtrainsbetweenPadingtonandthewestcountry at SouthWales.  Mr. George w

asthe Managing Director and Director with over all 
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199679responsibility for safety.1
76-
TheprosecutionsaythatapartfromDriveroftheTrain,thecompanytoowasguiltyofgrossnegligence,b
ut,thatitsnegligencewasseparatefromthatoftheDriver.LordMackeysaid at Page 187“...... in my 
opinion the ordinary principles of the law of negligenceapply to ascertainwhetheror not the 
defendant has beenin breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died.  Ifsucha br
each of duty is established, the next question is whetherthat breachcaused the death of thevi
ctim.Ifso,thejurymustgoontoconsiderwhetherthatbreachofdutyshouldbecharacterisedasgross n
egligence and thereforeas a crime.  This will depend on the seriousnessof the breachof duty 
committedbythedefendantinallthecircumstancesinwhichthedefendantwaspalcedwhenitoccurred.
Thejurywillhavetoconsiderwhethertheextenttowhichthedefendant'sconductdepartedfromthepro
perstandardofcareincumbentuponhim,involvingasitmusthavedoneariskof death........ was such 
that it should be judged criminal.”177-
Asfarasthe“company”isconcernHalsbury'sLawofEnglandFourthEditionVol.II(1)re-
issueobservesatParagraph35.“Criminalliabilityofacorporationariseswhereanoffenceiscommitte
dinthecourseofthecorporation'sbusinessbyapersonincontrolofitsaffairstosuchadegreethatitmayf
airlybesaidtothinkandactthroughhimsothathisactionsandintentaretheactionsandintentofthecorp
oration.Itisnotenoughthatthepersonwhoseconductitissoughttoimputetothecorporationisamanag
erorresponsibleagentorhighexecutive.Whetherpersonsarethe'directingmindandwill'ofacorporat
ion,sothattheirconductinitsaffairsbecomestheconductofthecorporation,mustdependonallthecirc
umstances.Animportantcircumstanceistheconstitutionofthecorporationtotheextenttowhichitiden
tifiesthenaturalpersonswho,bythememorandumand articles of association, or as a result of a
ction taken bythedirectors or bythe 
80

corporationingeneralmeetingpursuanttothearticles,areentrustedwiththeexerciseofthepowersof t

he corporations.”

178Lord Blackburn saidinMersey Dock Trusteesv Gibb (186667) LawReports1House of Lords 

1993 at Page104 that:

“........abodycorporatenevercaneithertakecareorneglecttotakecare,exceptthroughi

ts servants....”

179NextcomestheclassicstatementofviscountHaldaneLCinLennard'sCarryingCo. Limited v. As
iatic Petroleum Co Limited[1915] Appeal Cases 705at page 713:

180“MyLords,acorporationisanabstraction.Ithasnomindofitsownanymorethanit has a body of 

its own;its active anddirecting will must consequently be sought in the person ofsomebodyw

hoforsomepurposesmaybecalledanagent,but,whoisreallythedirectingmindandwill ofthecorpora

tion,the veryegoandcenterof the personalityof the corporation.That personmaybeunderthedire

ctionoftheshareholdersingeneralmeeting;thatpersonmaybetheBoardofDirectorsitself,oritmaybe

,andinsomecompaniesitisso,thatthatpersonhasanauthoritycoordinatewith the Board of Directo

rs given to him under the articles of association, and is appointed bythegeneralmeetingofthe

company,andcanonlyberemovedbythegeneralmeetingofthecompany.”

181-

Acompanyawesadutyofcareandifitscooperationfallsfarbelowthestandardrequired,itisguiltyofgro

ssnegligence.AseriesofminorfailuresbyOfficersoftheCompany byadd up to agross bridge by the 

company of its duty of care.  There is authority for such adoctrine in the law of tort and concep

t of negligence is the samein the criminal law.  The differencebeingoneofdegree....criminalnegli

gencemustbe'gross'.Itisimmaterialthatthedoctrineofvicariousliability in Todd does notapplyin cr

iminal law, becausethisis not acase of vicarious,but, ofpersonalliabilityandthatisaproperconcern

ofthecriminallaw.Thus,acorporationmightbepossibleliableformanslaughterontheaggregationpri

nciple,now,thatitestablishedthattheoffencemaybecommittedbygrossnegligence.Asitisobservedin

thecaseofReginaV.GWT,thatacompanymoveswiththeactsofvariousemployeesandtogetheramoun

ttobreachofdutyownedbythe companyto the passengers, the culminatingbreach amountingto gr

oss negligence.

182Tesco Supermarkets Limited v Nattrass [1972] Appeal Case153 wasa caseinvolving aProse

cutionundertheTrade DescriptionsAct, 1968.Thecompany soughtto raiseadefenceunderSection2
4(1)oftheActonthegroundsthatthecommissionoftheoffencewasduetotheactordefaultofanotherper

son,namelythemanagerofthestoreatwhichitwascommitted,and

thattheyhadtakenallreasonableprecautionsandexercisedallduediligencetoavoidthecommission of 

such an offence.183TheHouseofLordsheldthatthetakingofprecautionsandexerciseofdue

diligenceu/s24(1)

(B)involvesthedutyofsettingupanefficientsystemoftheavoidanceofoffencesundertheActandapro

peroperationofsystem,thatthedefendantshadadequatelyperformedthedutyandhadnotdelegatedtot

heirstoremanagerthefunctionsofensuringthatthesystemwascarried out and that accordingto the d

efendanthas satisfied the requirement of the Section. 

184-

Againacasebasedonvicariousliability,therefore,theapplicabilityoftheprinciplelaiddowninthiscas

eisnegetedinthepresentcase,asthisisnotacaseofvicariousliability.Vicarious liabilityhas no applica

tion in the present case. In themordern time thereis an everincreasingawarenessandexpectations

ofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesoflargecorporationsinmattersofhealthandsafety.Itisasadfactthatdes

piteadvancesinthemorderntechnologyfromtimetotime,majordisasteroccur.Often,perhaps,moreof

tenthannot,thesearetheresultsnotofone isolated human error ortechnical failure, but, a combinati

on of several operating together.  

185-

InAdomakotheHouseofLordsfollowedthelawassetoutinRvBatemen(1927)19CriminalAppealRe

portsPage8andAndrewsvDirectorofPublicProsecutions1937Appealcase576andLoardMackeysai

ditwasperfectlyappropriatetousetheword'reckless'insumminguptojuriesalbeitintheappropriateco

nnotationofthewordratherthaninthesenseinwhichit was usedin R v Lawrance[1982] Appeal Cas

es 510. Hegave, as anexample,what 
JaufreyLaneL.J.,ashethenwassaidinRvStone[1977]1Queen'sBench354at363wherethedefendant

hasundertakenthedutyofcaringforaninfirmperson.Hereferredtoarecklessdisregardofdangertotheh

ealthandwelfareofaninfirmperson,hesaid,mereinadvertenceisnotenough,thedefendantmustbepro

vedtohavebeenindifferenttoanobviousriskofinjurytohealthoractuallytohaveforeseenit,but,tohave

determineneverthelesstorunit.Inthepresentcasethemanagementandtheengineers,thosewhoareacc

used,ImayalsoreferherethatprosecutionwitnessMr.GourishankerandMr.VenuGopal,although,hav

enotbeenincludedinthelistofaccusedpersons,arefoundtobereckless,astheycanforeseenthefaultsan

dhazardsandtheyneverthelessdetermined to runit.   

186-

AshasbeenprovedbytheprosecutionthatattherelevantpointoftimeTankNo.610containing42tonsof

MIC,theRefrigerationPlan,twasturnedoffwithoutanywrittensanctionofanyexpert/authority,VGS

wasoutoforderwaterwashingwasgoingonbyuntrainedlaboursnamely, Mohd. Saleem andAbdulR

ehman.The safety manuals of UCILreveals thefact that thestaffshouldbegivenanadequatetrainin

gofhandlingthedifferentdivisionsofthefactoryasitcontainsveryhigh toxicsubstances.Aswe all are

aware that howdangerousthe Phosgene is.  In theII WorldWartheRulerofGermany,AdolfHitler,h

adusedthesameforassassinatingtheNazisandsuchagas,how can behandled byuntrainedor less trai

ned workers.

187AsfarasGourishankerPW88isconcerned,hewasalsoanewcomerinthefactory and can notbe sa

idthat hewas verymuchexpert in thesaid field. Mr. S.I. Qureshi, whowaspresenthimselfinthefact

ory,whentheincidenttookplace,wascarelessandoptbettertohadacupof tea rather than handlingthe

problem,and therefore, the poor maintenance, poor management apartfrom the design defects 

were the main causacausans of theincident. Criminal negligence is the gross

andculpableneglectorfailuretoexercisethatreasonableandpropercareandprecautiontoguardagains
tinjuryeithertothepublicgenerallyortoanindividualinparticular,whichhavingregardtoallthecircum

stancesoutofwhichthechargehasarisen,itwastheimperativedutyoftheaccusedperson to have adop

ted.

188-

Thelearnedcounselfurtherarguedthatthepresentcaseisbasedonthecircumstanceswhichdonotmake

acompletechain.HeplacedrelianceonMusheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr. V. State of

Madhya Pradesh , AIR 2010 SC 762

inthiscasethehon,bletheApexCourtreferringthecasesofRaghavPrapannatripathi&othersV.Stateof

UP,StateofUPV.RavindraPrkashMittle,MohanlalPagasa.StateofUPhasheldinpara46-

55thatincaseofcircumstantialevidenceonemustlookforcircumstantialevidenceandnotonsnappeda

ndscatteredlinkswhichdonotmakeacompletesequenceandallthelinksmustbeprovedbeyondreason

abledoubt.Iftheconvictionissolelybasedonthecircumstantialevidence,itmustcreateanetworkfrom 

whichthe noescape to the accused.

189-

AlltheabovementionedcasesarenotrelatedtoanyoftheindustrialdisasterliketheBhopalGasdisaster.

Itisofitsownkindintheworldandthecircumstancesofthepresentcasearenotcompetabletotheotherca

se.Theprosecutionisabletoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthecompletesequenceandallthelinkscirc

umstancesresponsibleforthedisaster.Therefore,thepresentcaseisdistinguishablefromtheaboveref

erredcases.Henceservenoadvantagetotheaccused persons.

190-

ItisarguedbythelearnedCounselthatthenormalruleisthatcasesinvolvingcriminalliabilityisagainstv

icariousliability.Noonecanbeheldliableforanactcommittedbytheothersvicariouslywithout a speci

fic provision in the statuteextending liabilities to others.But, the 
reliance placed on the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. NeetaBhalla"AIR 2005 SUPRE

MECOURT 3512.

191-

Thenormalruleisthatincriminalcasesthereisnoprinciplethattheperson,whohasnotcommittedacrim

e,cannotbepunishedfortheactdonebytheothers.Principleslikevicariousliabilityresipsalocuteraren

onapplicable.Theremustbedirectandproximatecauseresulted in the incidentagainst the accused p

erson,only then he can bepunished. A similar view hasbeen observed in the caseof  Sham Sund

ar v. State of Haryana" AIR 1989 S C 1982.

192-

Inthepresentcasethereisachainofcircumstancessupportedbyexpertwitnessesandtheevidenceofthe

employeesoftheUCILthatprovethenegligentconductofalltheaccusedpersons,whowereworkingin

differentcapacityattherelevantpointoftimeandwereabletoavoidsuchtypeofincidentbypropercarea

ndcaution.However,theydidnottakeanyactionandthereisclear cut omission ontheirpart. They are

alsohaving good knowledge that if theshortcomings in the instrumentsisnotrectified,suchincide

ntcouldhappenatanytime.Knowingallthethings,theyomittedtodowhattheywereentrustedtodo.The

refore,theofficersofthecompanyresponsiblefortheactstobedonebythemselvespersonally,liablefor
nd rd
theacts,whichresultedintheincidentof2 3

December,1984.Attherelevantpointoftimeeveryperson,whowastheinchargeandresponsibletothe

particulardivisionoftheFactoryincludingthemanagement,asthisactcannotbedonebyasingleperson

,asimposedbythedefenceonPW-

26,Mohd.Saleem,ratherthejobofthehigherofficialstolookafterthefunctioningofdifferentimportant

equipments,valves,pipe,tankcapacityandotherimportantaspect,duetofailureofwhichthisincidentt

ookplace.Bymakingelusiveaverment,aroutefortheirescapementcannotbeprovided,thattheinciden
 nd rd
thappenedwithouttheirknowledgeortheyhadexercisedallduediligencetopreventthehazardof2 3

Dec., 1984.

193-

Consequently,theevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionissufficienttoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtt

hattheaccusedpersonsviz.SriKeshubMahindra,Chairman,UnionCarbideCorporation,Bhopal,Sri

VijayPrabhakerGokhleManagingDirector,UnionCarbideCorp.SriKishoreKamdaar,VicePresiden

ti/cAPDivisionUnionCarbideCorp.,SriJ.MukundformerWorksManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbid

eCorp,SriS.P.Choudhary,ProductionManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideCorporation,SriK.V.Shet

ty,PlantSuperintendentWorksManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideCorporation,BhopalandSriS.I.

QureshiformerProductionManagerAPDivisionUnionCarbideCorporation,Bhopal,thecompanyU

CILitself,werenegligent.Thenegligentconductofalltheaccusedpersons,whoattherelevantpointofti

mecouldhaveconfrontedsuchincidentbypropercareand caution. Knowing all thethings, they omi

ttedto do what they were entrusted to do.

194Therefore, the company and officersof the company responsible for the acts to bedonebythe

mselvespersonally,liablefortheacts,therebythetoxiousMICescapedfromthetankno.

E610,ahugequantity,causedtheimmediatedeathofthousandsofhumanbeingsandcaused

simple and grievous injuriesto anumberof people.Some ofthembecomepermanently disabledan
d

thereafteranumberofpersonseffected.Thousandsofanimalsandothercreatureshadalsobeen

effected.

195The following major contributors to the disaster:

Gradual but sustained erosion of goodmaintenance practices.
Decliningquality of technical training of plant personnel, especiallyits supervisorystaff. 
Depleting inventories of vital spares.
MICisahighlydangerousandtoxicpoison,eventhenstorageofhugequantityinlargetankswasundesir
able.ThecapacityandactualproductionintheSevinPlantisnotrequiredsuchahuge quantity to be sto
red.
The VGS and refrigeration plant were not adequateto the need of hour andmore so theywereout 
of order at the relevantpoint of time. 
Thenitrogenpressurewasnotadequateforlongbeforetheincident,soitwasnotmaintainedand hardly 
cared about.  
ThePublicInformationSystemwasfailed,neithertheStateGovt.northeUCCorUCILtookany stepsto 
appraisethe local public.  
Other alarming systemswere alsofailed. 

196Togetherthesefactorscombinedtocausethemultiplefailuresthatunderlaythe

calamitousincident, causing a vast destructionof life.

197AccordinglytheaccusedpersonsnamelySriKeshubMahindra,Chairman,Union

Carbide Corp.oration Bhopal, Sri Vijay Prbhaker Gokhle Managing Director, Union Carbide
Corp. Sri

Kishore Kamdaar,Vice President i/c AP Division Union Carbide Corp.,Sri J.Mukund former
Works

Manager AP Division Union Carbide Corp, Sri S.P.Choudhary, Production Manager AP

Division UnionCarbideCorporation,SriKVShettyPlantSuperintendentWorksManagerAPDivisio
nUnionCarbideCorporationBhopalandSriSIQureshiformerProductionManagerAPDivisionUnio
nCarbideCorporationBhopalwereemployedintheUCIL.AndtheUnionCarbideCorporationfoundg
uiltyfortheoffencespunishableundersections304-
A,336,337,and338r/wS.35ofIndianPenalCode,1860and liableto be punished.

198Therefore,thejudgmentisadjournedforsometimeforhearingtheaccusedpersons onthe question 

of sentence.

MOHAN P. TIWARI           CHIEF JUDIC

IAL MAGISTRATE,BHOPAL, (MP)

199-
Itissubmittedonbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsthatmostofthemareoldpersonsandfirstoffendersandfa
cingthetrialforlast25years.ItisfurthersubmittedthattheCompanyhasdepositedasumofUS$470mill
ionincompliancetotheSupremeCourt'sOrder.Therefore,theyshould be treated leniently. 

200It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Keshub Mahindra that he is an old man aged about86yearso
fageandanexcellentpersonalityoftheIndustrialWorld.Hewasmerelyanonexecutivedirectorlike the 
others.

201-
ApartfrombeinginvolvedintheIndustries,hehasbeenassociatedandcontributedtovariousfields,suc
hasacademic,cultural,legalandsocialreforms,Philantrophy,etc.Apartfromallthese,heissufferingfr
omanumberofdiseases,likeCardiac,Spinal,etc.Therefore,consideringtheabovementionedfactsale
nientviewbeadoptedbyenlargingtheaccusedunderprobationofOffenders'Actor under the provisio
ns of Section 360Cr.P.C.202Thereare annexuresattached to thesubmissions,Annexure – B & C,  
according to 
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199688them Mr. Mahindrais a di
rector andmember also founder of differentprestigious industrial

organisation and recipientof severalawards.203-

ThelearnedCounseloftheaccused,ShriAmitDesai,insupportofhisabovesubmissionsplacedrelianc

eonthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleApexCourtinthecasesofMohd.Giasuddin v.State ofAndhra Pra

desh, (1977)3SCC297. In thiscasetheHon'ble Supreme Court

observedascertainelementalfactorsaresignificantstandofcriminologicalthought.Sincethewholete

rritoryofpunishmentinitsmodernsettingisvirtuallyvirginsofarasourcountryisconcerned,wemayas

wellgointothesubjectinsomeincisivedepthfortheguidanceofthesubordinatejudiciary.Thesubjecto

fstudytakesustoourculturalheritagethatthereisdivinityineverymanwhichhasbeen translated intot

he constitutional essence of the dignity and worthof the humanperson. We takethe liberty of ma

king an Indianapproachand then strikeacosmic note.

204ProgressivecriminologistsacrosstheworldwillagreethattheGandhiandiagnosisofoffenders as

patientsand his conception of prisons as hospitals– mental and moral – is the key to thepatholo

gyofdelinquencyandthetherapeuticroleof'punishment'.Thewholemanisahealthymanandeveryma

nisborngood.Criminalityis a curable deviance.The moralityofthe lawmayvary,butis real.  The b
asic goodness of all human beings is a spiritual axiom, a fallout of theadviataof cosmiccreation 

and thespringof correctionalthought is criminology.

205-

Ifeverysainthasapast,everysinnerhasafuture,anditistheroleoflawtoremindbothofthis.TheIndiange

niusofoldhasmadeahealthycontributiontothewordtreasuryofcriminology.Thedrawbackofourcrim

inalprocessisthatoftentheyarebuiltonthebricksofimpressionist opinionsand datedvalues, ignorin

gempiricalstudies anddeeper researches.

206-

India,likeeveryothercountry,hasitsowncrimecomplexanddilemmaofpunishment.Solutionstotang

ledsocialissuesdonotcomelikethecrackofdawnbutaretheproductofresearchandstudy,orientedonth

efoundingfaithsofsocietyanddrivingtowardsthattransformationwhichisthegoaloffreeIndia.Manis

subjecttomorestressesandstrainsinthisagethaneverbefore,andanewclassofcrimesarisingfromrestl

essnessofthespiritandfrustrationofambitionshaserupted.Whitecollar crime, with which we areco

ncerned here,belongsto thisdiseaseof man's inside.

207In another case State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Keshavdeo, 1991 CRLJ

3187,theHon'bleMumbaiHighCourtinpara15observedthatitisanessentialnecessityofpublicpolicy

thataccusedwhohavecommittedcrimesmustbepunishedwhenfactsarefreshinthepublicmind. If for

whatever reasons, the judicial process had draggedon for an abnormal point of time andiftheac

cusedatthatstageisfacedwithanadverseverdict,itwouldnotbeintheinterestofjusticetoimposeatthisp

ointoftimejailsentenceontheaccusedhoweverseriousthefactsofthecaseare.Moreover,tomymind,w

hatisultimatelyallegedinthiscaseisthattheaccusedbycommittingthefraudwithwhichtheyhavebeen

charged,didmakearealisticattempttomakesubstantialgaintothemselvesandtothisextent,tomymind

,theinterestofjusticewouldbeservedbyimposingontheaccused a substantial fine and not a jail sen
tence.

208 Mr. D. Prasad, on behalf of Mr. D.P. Gokhale has submitted that he is reputed personnever 

convicted for any offense, presentlysuffering from Hypertension, Ichmeic HeartAttackand he is

continuouslyunder medication for over 25 years.  Hiswife also suffering from cancer.

209Shri Prasadfurther submittedon behalfof Mr. K.S.Kamdarthat Mr. Kamdaris amanof79years

ofageandhaveailmentslikeHighBloodPressure,SlipDiscandBackPain,EnlargedProstrateand urin

aryincontinence, chronicirritablebowelin digestivesystem. He is also holding 
State of MP Vs. WarrenAnderson & others Cr. Case No. 8460/ 199690higher position in various 
organisations.210 Mr. D. Prasad further arguedregarding J.Mukund the then WorksManager U
CILBhopal.ShriD.PrasadsubmittedthatMr.J.Mukundishavingexcellentqualification.Hisfatherwa
sformerGovernorofReserveBankofIndia.HeisanoldmansufferingfromDiabetesalongwithHighBl
oodPressureand High Serium Cholesterol for which he has beenundergoing treatment. 211-
RegardinganotheraccusedMr.S.PChoudhary,itissubmittedbyMr.D.Prasad,thatheishasexcellentq
ualification,presentlyservingUnitedNationBreweries,SouthAfricainthecapacityof Dy. President. 
He is asolebread earned in his family and having agedparents.212 Mr. D. Prasad submitted that 
Mr. K.V. Shetty is agedabout 73 yearsof ageand sufferingfromCardiacProblemsashehasthreeAr
teriesblockedandadvisedheartsurgery.Heandhiswifestay at Udupiin Karnataka.  He is simply a 
pensioner.213   The last accused, Mr. S.I. Qureshi, as argued by learned Counsel, that he is seri
ouslyilland sufferinga severparalytic attack.  214 Therefore,all theaccused persons, as arguedby
thelearnedCounsels, are of old age,suffering from differentdiseases andhas obtainedexcellent q
ualifications.  215-
TheBhopalGasTragedyistheworsttragedyintheworldthathaveshakenthewholeworld..Therefore,i
nsuchworld'sworstdisaster,iftheaccusedpersonsareextendedonprobation,eitheru/s4ofProbationof
OffendersActorundertheprovisionofSection360Cr.P.C.,therewillnotbejusticewiththepeople,who
sufferedagreat.Theendcamehorribly,but,atleastthenightmarewasbrief.Forthosewhosurvivedthe
MICleak,thereleasewillnotcomesoquickly.Thousandsofthe seriouslyaffectedsurvivors still suffe
r suchextensivelungdamage that they cannolongerapply

themselvesphysicallyandwalkingbrisklyevenforafewminutessendsthemgaspingtotheirknees.Wo

men have peculiar gynaecologicalproblemsand arestill givenbirthto deformed children.

216ThetragedywascausedbythesynergyoftheveryworstofAmericanandIndiancultures. An Amer

ican corporationcynically used a third world countryto escape from the increasinglystrictsafety

standardsimposedathome.SafetyprocedureswereminimalandneithertheAmericanownersnorthelo

calmanagementseemedtoregardthemasnecessary.Whenthedisasterstrucktherewasnodisasterplan
thatcouldbesetintoaction.Promptactionbythelocalauthoritiescouldhavesavedmany,ifnotmost,oft

hevictims.Theimmediateresponsewasmarredbycallousindifference.

217-

UnionCarbideshouldhavehadtheselfrealizationtoexercisethegreatestcareandtaketheprecautions,

whenitwasdealingwithsuchlethalchemicals.Itwastheburdenoflocalgovernmentalsotoplayitssupe

rvisoryandregulatoryrolewiththeatmostsincerity.However,both,UCILandGovernment,utterlyfail

indoingso.Thousandsofpeoplearestillsuffering.Iftheaccusedpersonsaredealtwithsympathy, thesa

crificeof the victimsof BhopalTragedy willhavebeen invain.Therefore,inthecircumstancesofthe

presentcase,theaccusedpersonscannotbeextendedonprobation.

218Therefore, the accused persons namely under section 304A read with Section 35 IPC(1)-

SriKeshubMahindra,(2)SriVijayPrabhakerGokhle.(3)SriKishoreKamdaar,(4)SriJ.Mukund(5)-

SriS.P.Choudhary,(6)SriKVShetty(7)-

SriSIQureshi,holdingguiltyfortheoffencepunishableundersections304-

A/35ofIndianPenalCode,1860foranimprisonmentof2yearsandfineofRs.100,000.00each,andunde

rsection336IndianPenalCode,1860animprisonment of 3 months

and fine of Rs. 250.00 each, and under section 337/35 Indian Penal Code,1860 an imprisonmen

t of 6monthsandfineofRs.500.00each,undersection338/35IndianPenalCode,1860animprisonme

ntof 1yearsandfineof Rs. 1000.00 each, In default offineeachof the accusedpersonshall undergo

6monthsof imprisonmentin addition.  All the sentences shall run concurrently.

219(8)-

UnionCarbideCorporationBhopalisnotahumanbeingtherefore,cannotbepunishedwithajailsenten

ce.Therefore,thelawlaiddownbyhon'bletheApexCourtinthecaseof"StandardCharteredBankv.Dir

ectorateofEnforcement"AIR2005SC2622,isappropriatetobefollowedIt isobservedbythehon,ble
ApexCourtthatthereisnoimmunitytothecompaniesfromprosecutionmerelybecausetheprosecutio

nisinrespectofoffencesforwhichthepunishmentprescribedismandatoryimprisonment.Asthecomp

anycannotbesentencedtoimprisonment,theCourtcannotimposethatpunishment,butwhenimprison

mentandfineistheprescribedpunishmenttheCourtcanimposethepunishmentoffinewhichcouldbee

nforcedagainstthecompany.Suchadiscretion is to beread into the Section viz., S. 56 of Foreign 

Exchange Regulation Act (1973) (FERA)andSs.276Cand278BofIncome-

taxAct(1961)sofarasthejuristicpersonisconcerned.Ofcourse, theCourt cannotexercise the same 

discretion as regards a natural person.

220Asregardscompany,theCourtcanalwaysimposeasentenceoffineandthesentence of imprisonm

entcan be ignored asit is impossible to be carriedout in respect of a company.Thisappearstobeth

eintentionoftheLegislature.Itcannotbesaidthat,thereisablanketimmunityforanycompanyfromany

prosecutionforseriousoffencesmerelybecausetheprosecutionwouldultimatelyentailasentenceofm

andatoryimprisonment.Thecorporatebodies,suchasafirmorcompanyundertakeseriesofactivitiest

hataffectthelife,libertyandpropertyofthecitizens.Largescale financialirregularities aredone by va

riouscorporations.The corporatevehicle now occupies

suchalargeportionoftheindustrial,commercialandsociologicalsectorsthatamenabilityofthecorpor

ationtoacriminallawisessentialtohaveapeacefulsocietywithstableeconomy.TheHon'blecourtOver

ruled theviewsobservedinthecasesofAssistantCommissioner,Assessment,Bangalore

v.

VelliappaTextilesLtd.,AIR2004SC86:2003AIRSCW5647:2004CriLJ1221:2003TaxLR1054:20

03AIR-

KantHCR2878,Therefore,thecompanyUnionCarbideOfIndiaLimitedshallbeliabletopayafineund

ersection304-
AofIPCRs.5,00,000.00undersection336IndianPenalCode,1860afineofRs.250.00,andundersectio

n337/35IndianPenalCode,1860afineofRs.500.00 , undersection 338/35IndianPenal Code,1860a

fine of Rs. 1000.00 each.Bail and bondsof the accusedpersonsare cancelled.

221At the last I would like to suggest a separate Act to be legislatedas it prevails in UnitedKin

gdomHealthandSafetyatWorketc.Act1974tomakefurtherprovisionforsecuringthehealth,safetyan

dwelfareofpersonsatwork,forprotectingothersagainstriskstohealthorsafetyinconnectionwiththea

ctivitiesofpersonsatwork,forcontrollingthekeepinganduseandpreventingtheunlawfulacquisition,

possessionanduseofdangeroussubstances,andforcontrollingcertainemissionsintotheatmosphere;t

omakefurtherprovisionwithrespecttotheemploymentmedicaladvisory service222-

Asfarastheprovisionsofsection357ofCriminalProcedureCodeareconcerned,BhopalGasLeakDisa

ster(ProcessingofClaims)Act1985AnActtoconfercertainpowersontheCentralGovernmenttosecu

rethatclaimsarisingoutof,orconnectedwith,theBhopalgasleak

disasteraredealtwithspeedily,effectively,equitablyandtothebestadvantageoftheclaimantsandform

attersincidentalthereto.223The Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the case of Dilip S. Dhanukar V. Kota

kMahindra Co. 

Ltd.2007,AllMR(Cri.)1775SC,inpara27hasobservedthatcompensationisawardedtowardssuffere

rsofanylossorinjurybyreasonofanactforwhichanaccusedpersonissentenced.Althoughitprovidesfo

racriminalliability,theamountwhichhasbeenawardedascompensationisconsideredto be recourseo

f the victim in thesame manner, whichmaybegranted in a civil suit.  

224-

InthepresentcasetheHon'bleSupremeCourt,whiledecidingcriminalAppealNos.3187,3188/1988w

ithSLP(C)No.13080/1988dated14-

15.9.1989,5.4.1989and4.5.1989(UnionCarbideCorpn.v.UnionofIndiaandOthers)reportedinAIR
1990SC273inPara5ofthejudgmenttheHon'bleCourthasobservedthattherewasasettlementfinallydi

sposingallpast,presentandfutureclaims,causesofactionandcivilandcriminalproceedings(ofanynat

urewhatsoever,whereverpending)byallIndianCitizensandallpublicandprivateentitieswithrespectt

oallpast,presentandfuturedeaths,personalinjuries,healtheffects,compensation,losses,damagesan

dcivilandcriminalcomplaintsofanynature,whatsoeveragainstUCC,UCILandothersubsidiariesaffi

liatedaswellastheirformer,presentorfutureofficers,theorderwasreviewedbytheHon'bleCourtinUn

ionCarbideCorporationetc.etc.v.UnionofIndia,etc.etc.,

AIR1992SC317whiledisposingofInterimAppln.Nos.1,2and3of1989;inCivilAppealNos.3187and

3188of1988,D/3101991considered the points of compensation in Para 68, 69 of the Judgment.

225-

Therefore,whentheGovt.ofIndiahasenactedaspecialAct,theBhopalGasLeak(ProcessofClaims)A

ct,1985withhisowndistinctfeaturestomeetonetimesolution.Inprovidesexclusivityofrightoftherep

resentationsofallclaimantsbyUnionofIndiaandfordiversifyingtheindividualclaimantsofanyrightt

opursueanyremedyforanycauseagainstUCCandUCIL.Therefore,thepointofcompensationisnotsu

pposedtobereviewedandturneddownbytheHon'bleCourt and hence u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. is not req

uired to be awarded.The claimscan be settled within the purview of the special Act.

226 Mr. Warren Anderson, UCC USA and UCC Kowlnn Hongkong are still absconding andthe

refore,everypartofthiscase(CriminalFile)iskeptintactalognwiththeexhibitedandunexhibiteddocu

ments andtheproperty relatedto this case, in safe custody, till their appearance.

MOHAN P.TIWARICHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,Bhopal, Dated 07 June 2010BHOPAL, (MP
)