CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES Vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On February 5, 1955, there was a tragic accident in the Amlabad Colliery, in Manbhum District, in the State of Bihar, as a result of which 52 persons lost their lives and one escaped with injuries. The court of enquiry which was appointed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the accident submitted its report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of some of the regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. This report was duly published under S. 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the Government of India informed the manager and the agent of the colliery that a court of enquiry was being constituted under cl. (a) of the Regulation 48 to hold an inquiry into their conduct. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against 14 persons including the manager and the agent of the colliery, all the directors of the company which was the owner of the colliery and the directors of the managing agents of that company. The complaints alleged violation by the 14 accused of several regulations out of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. There were two separate complaints in respect of the violation of different regulations. It was alleged in one of the complaints that the accused persons had by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein committed offences under S. 73 of the Mines Act, 1952, the other complaint alleged that by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein the accused persons had committed offences under Ss. 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and issued processes against all the 14 persons on May 23, 1956. Six of the accused persons, Lala Karam Chand Thapper, H. P. Poddar, Jagat Ram Sharma, Kumud Ranjan Dutt, H. V. Varma and U. Mehta filed applications before the High Court of Patna for the issue of appropriate writs or orders for quashing the criminal proceedings. The main ground on which these different applications were based was that the regulations for the alleged violation of which the complaints were lodged had ceased to have any legal existence long before the date of the alleged violation by the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923, under which they had admittedly been made. Another ground taken by all the applicants was that the prosecution was in violation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. In the application by two directors of the company owning the mine, Lala Karam Chand Thapper and H. P. Poddar a further point was taken that the prosecution of all the directors was not permitted by the Mines Act, 1952. The directors of the managing agents raised in their applications the point that the menaging agents not being owners of the colliery the directors of the managing agents should not be prosecuted.

(2.) The High Court rejected the applicants' contention that the Regulations framed under S. 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, ceased to have legal existence after the repeal of that Act. It however accepted the contention of the managing agents' directors that they were not liable to prosecution. The High Court also held on a consideration of the provision of S. 76 of the 1952 Act that all the directors of the company which owned the colliery could not be prosecuted and only one to be chosen by the complainant out of all the directors could be proceeded against. On these findings the High Court dismissed the applications of the manager and the agent, and allowed the applications of the directors of the managing agents. In the two applications by the two directors of the colliery company (Lala Karam Chand Thapper and H. P. Poddar) it gave a direction requiring the respondents 2 and 3 before it, that is, the Chief Inspector of Mines ,and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, "to choose one of the directors of the company for being prosecuted against and to remove the name of the other directors from the category of the accused persons". In the two criminal cases the two directors of the company obtained special leave to appeal against this direction and have, pursuant thereto, filed the two appeals which are now before us as Criminal Appeals Nos. 103 and 104/1959. The manager and the agent have also filed appeals against the order rejecting t heir applications after having obtained special leave from this Court. These two appeals are now numbered as Cr. Appeals Nos. 105 and 106 of 1959. The Chief Inspector of Mines and others who are made respondents in the application under Art. 226 have also filed appeals on special leave granted by this Court against the High Court's order in the applications of the directors of the managing agents allowing the same and also against the High Court's orders in the application of the two directors of the company asking the Chief Inspector of Mines and the Regional Inspector of Mines to choose one only of the directors for prosecution; their appeals in the application of the directors of the managing agents before us have been numbered as Criminal Appeals Nos.100 and 101. Their appeals in the applications of the directors of the colliery company are number 98 and 99 of 1957.

(3.) It will be convenient to refer to the appellants in these four appeals as government-appellants.