DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES Vs. P NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of the orders passed in CC. No.112, 110, 113 and 111 of 1971 respectively on the file of the Munsiff-cum-JMFC. Kudligi. The facts that have given rise to these petitions are these: The accused in these cases were charged under Ss.70, 72C(1) (b) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Regulation 160(2) and 167 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1P61. The accused raised a preliminary point, that the complaints field against them by the State (Government of India) represented by the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety). Bellary Sub-Region, Bellary were not maintainable as barred by time. The learned Magistrate upheld the obiections and conseouently dismissed the complaint petitions. Aggrieved by these decisions these revisions are filed by the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety). The question that arises for decision in these petitions being the same, they are considered together.

(2.) The Deputy Director of Mines (Safety) filed four complaints against the accused persons in these cases in the first instance in the Court cf the First Class Magistrate. Hospet. The paid complaints were filed within six months from the date of the commission of offences or from the date of the knowledge of the commission of the offences. The learned Magistrate registred the cases and issued processes to the accused. In that Court the accused persons contended that that Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The learned Magistrate held that the "Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. He, therefore returned the complaints to the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety) giving him 30 days time to file the complaints in a competent Court of Law. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Mines (Safety) filed the present complaints in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Kudligi. The accused persons contended that in view of the provisions of S.79 of the Act, the complaints were barred bv limitation and as such they were liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaints. Hence these revision petitions.

(3.) Section 79 of the Act provides :