3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2025 Ashok Kumar Jatansingh Mehta ...Applicant VERSUS State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Rahul Arote, Mr. Chinmay Godse, Ms. Gauri Jadhav, Ms. Gauri Konde-Deshmukh and Mr. Nagraj Tarade, for the Applicant. Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI- Shelke, Sewree Police Station, Mumbai. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to the rejection of discharge application filed by the applicant is rejected. 2. It is prosecution’s case that the four-storeyed BMC building namely Babu Genu Market situated at Dockyard, Mazgaon, Mumbai collapsed on 27.09.2013 at around 6 pm, in which 61 inmates lost their lives, several suffered grievous injuries. At the time of incident, a godown admeasuring 4500 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the said building was occupied by present applicant as a licensee. It is alleged that applicant unauthorisedly by constructed a mezzanine loft in the said leased premises, SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.09.09 17:40:20 +0530 3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje he stored heavy materials on ground floor which contributed to the collapse of the said building. 3. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The building was in a dilapidated condition and there were reports of the BMC officials about the urgent repairs of the said building, but no repairs were carried out. He further submitted that out of 11 accused persons, 10 accused persons have been discharged by the learned Sessions Court. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that prior to the collapse of the said building, structural audit report was prepared by the M/s. Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. and the said consultant was appointed by BMC on 06.10.2012 to conduct a structural audit of the said building. The said report was commissioned and prepared approximately 10 months before the unfortunate incident and the said report was commissioned and concluded during the applicant’s use and occupation of the godown in the said building and the irregularities, if any, would have been observed, recorded and reported in the said Structural Audit Report. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that M/s. Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. carried out a detailed inspection of the said building and also conducted Non-Destructive Testing (NDT Test) and submitted a report containing an opinion regarding repair and strengthening of RCC columns, beam, sajja, etc. Learned Senior 3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje counsel further submitted that in the said report, it is not mentioned about any alteration and structural change was made by the applicant. There is no whisper of the mezzanine floor erected by the applicant on the ground floor. In the said report, it is advised to undertake immediate and urgent structural repairs. There was no action taken on the basis of report of M/s. Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. by the BMC or its officials. Learned counsel further submitted that the said building was declared C-2B (Structure requiring major structural repair) by the BMC. Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter several letters were issued by the Assistant Commissioner, BMC which shows that the building was in dilapidated condition, but no steps were taken to repair the said building. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Mr. Sagir Ahmed Shabir Ahmed Asari, Shopkeeper demonstrates that in the year 1986 there were 30 shops on the ground floor, in which there were egg shop, chicken shop, beef and mutton shop and the walls dividing the shops from the ground to the ceiling were removed by the BMC and the area was converted into one shop of 4500 sq.ft. and the same was auctioned. Learned counsel further submitted that the BMC issued a notice dated 29.01.2011 which was replied by the applicant and thereafter BMC renewed the applicant’s licence for the use and occupation of the said godown and continued to occupy the said building upto March-2014. No 3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje show cause notice under Section 351 of MMC Act, 1888 or any notice under Section 53 of MRTP Act, 1966 was issued to the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had constructed a temporary loft using wooden bamboos and the load of the same was borne by the ground and not to the building. Therefore, the question of applicant’s loft causing the collapse of the building does not arise. It is only to make the applicant a scapegoat without any concrete material on record. However, these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous. There is no case at all against the applicant and requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant was occupying the ground floor of the said building. He constructed the mezzanine loft on the ground floor without BMC’s permission. Despite service of notice, the applicant failed to take steps of remove the mezzanine loft. The applicant stored large amount of goods on the ground floor. Because of the act of the applicant, the said building collapsed. The learned Sessions Judge has passed well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and the documents produced on record. Admittedly, at the time of the incident, the applicant was occupying the ground floor of the said building. Page 4 of 6 3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje It is alleged that the applicant had erected a mezzanine floor on the ground floor and stored heavy goods there and it was one of the reason for the collapse of the said building. In the year 2011, BMC officials visited the said building and they noticed the alleged mezzanine loft being constructed by the applicant. Consequently, notices dated 29.01.2011. 08.02.2011 and 21.07.2011 were issued to the applicant to remove the said mezzanine loft. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that no notice under the provisions of MMC Act, 1988 or MRTP Act, 1966 was given to the applicant and after issuance of the said notices, the licence of the applicant was renewed on 01.04.2012. In my view, the notices issued to the applicant for removal of the alleged loft indicates that the unauthorised structure was erected on the ground floor. The subsequent renewal of the license of the applicant after receiving the notice is a separate matter. It is important to note that after the collapse of the said building, B. K. Rao (Chief Scientist and Advisor), CBRI was appointed to submit the report in respect of the collapse of the said building and Dr. B.K.Rao inspected the site and, after inspection, he submitted a report. In the said report, one of the reasons given for collapse of the building was unauthorised alteration on the ground floor. It is alleged that the applicant had erected unauthorised mezzanine loft stored heavy materials on the ground floor. It prima facie indicates the 3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje involvement of the applicant in the crime. It is settled principle of law that the accused can be discharged from the case, when there is no case at all against him. However, in the present case, around 61 people have lost their lives. The BMC officials have been discharged as no sanction was granted against them. It prima facie shows the apathy of the then Commissioner of BMC. The Chief Secretary of State Government shall initiate an enquiry against the then BMC Commissioner for not according sanction against the errant BMC officials who are allegedly responsible for the said incident and decide the further course of action against him. As there is prima facie case against the applicant, I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Revision Application is rejected. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)