STATE OF MYSORE Vs. P CSARANGAPANI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 25-8-1956 of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tiptur in Criminal case Number 44 of 1955 acquitting the respondents of the several charges framed against them under the Indian Mines Act read with the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations of 1926.

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and briefly stated are as follows : The first respondent P. K. Sarangapany Mudaliar obtained a prospecting license from the State of Mysore for exploiting manganese ore in an area known as Venkajigudda in the year 1951 and has been working the Mines ever since. Respondents 2 to 5 are connected with those mines as they are working under the first respondent. On 23-12-1954 there was an accident at about 10-30 A.M. In 'Vajra Block' of Venkajikudda Manganese Mines which resulted in the death of six of the labourers working in the Mines and injuries to some others. The accident was due to the collapse of the side walls of the Mines. The matter was reported to the District Magistrate and the Mines Inspector A. S. Giri Rao (third respondent) by menas of telegrams. After taking the necessary rescue operations the dead bodies of the labourers were removed out of the debris and some of the labourers who had been buried were rescued. The Inspector of Mines inspected the mining area and took up the investigation of the causes of the accident. After examining some of the labourers and the mining area, he came to the conclusion that the respondents had not taken the necessary precautions contemplated under Regulations 38, 39, 40, 41, 43(1), 45 and 91 of the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations and had been thereby responsible for the accident. He, therefore, placed a charge-sheet against the five respondents before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tiptur for offences punishable under Regulations 38, 39, 40, 43(1) and 45 of the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations read with Section 74 of the Indian Mines Act of 1952. All the respondents pleaded not guilty to the several charges when the accusations were read over and explained to them by the learned Magistrate. The Prosecution examines some witnesses to establish that the respondents had not taken necessary precautions as contemplated in the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations and in particular evidence was adduced to prove that the respondents had not sloped, stepped or secured the walls of the mines in such a manner as to prevent danger from falls of material; that they had not danger from falls of material; that they had not worked in the steps and benches of sufficient breadth with the height of the Mines to secure safety for the labourers and had not removed the overburden and all loose ground and material sufficiently far away from the edge in order to prevent danger to persons employed in the Mines and as a consequence of these acts of omission and commission, the earth and the walls gave way on the date of accident which resulted in the death of six persons and injuries to several others. On the evidence so adduced the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the respondents had not taken the necessary steps as contemplated in the Regulations to prevent the accident that no evidence was adduced to prove the condition of the Mines prior to the accident and that the respondents were entitled for the benefit of doubt. The learned Magistrate further held that in view of the fact that the Indian Mines Act of 1923 had been replaced by the Mines Act of 1952 and rules & Regulations had not yet been framed under the new Act, the respondents were not liable to be convicted for infringement of any of the Rules and Regulations framed under the Act of 1923 which had been repealed and replaced by Act 35 of 1952. In the opinion of the learned Magistrate the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations of 1926, which were alleged to have been infringed by the respondents were not in force at the relevant period and that the respondents could not, therefore, be convicted for infringement of any of the provisions of the said Regulations. Accordingly he acquitted the respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It was urged by the learned Magistrate was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had not placed sufficient material before the Court to prove that the accident was due to the non-observance of the mandatory provisions of the Mines Act and the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations by the respondents. He contended that the evidence on record and the circumstances proved in the case, clearly indicated that the respondents had not taken all the necessary steps to prevent the fall of the walls by sloping, stepping or securing the sides and had actually deposited the overburden and loose ground and material just on the edge of the walls of the Mines and were thereby responsible for the accident. He took us through responsible for the accident. He took us through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. We scrutinised the evidence in the light of the arguments of the learned Advocate-General. Majority of the witnesses, who were admittedly present at the spot at the time of the accident did not support the prosecution case while they gave evidence in Court and consequently they were treated as hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Opinion expressed by the other Witnesses, who visited the spot after the accident is almost based on conjectures and surmises. In the result, therefore, there was no direct and creditworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the accident and to prove that the respondents had not taken the necessary and obligatory measures to safeguard the lives of labourers working in the Mines. We are not prepared to subscribe to the suggestion of the learned Advocate-general that though the prosecution had failed to establish by adducing oral evidence that the respondents had not taken all necessary steps and precautions as contemplated under the Rules and Regulations framed under the Mines Act, the Court should reach that conclusion solely on the evidence of the experts, who visited the premises immediately after the occurrence. He contended that the Inspector of Mines and the other official witnesses examined in the case were all of the unanimous opinion that the accident would not have happened if there was proper sloping width had been prepared and the loose earth removed from the Mines had not been stocked just on the edge of the side of the Mines and there was no reason to reject the expert evidence. There is no substance in this contention. It is the very essence of a criminal trial that it must be decided on the legal evidence placed on record and not conjectures. The burden of establishing that the respondents had infringed the several rules a relating to the working of the Mines and that the accident was entirely due to their negligence was entirely on the prosecution. The prosecution was bound to establish by adducing evidence of competent witnesses that the provisions of Regulations 38, 39, 40 and 41 had been infringed by the respondents and as a result of such infringement the accident occurred. It is not doubt true that some of the circumstances show that the accident was probably due to the non-observance of the rules and regulations by the respondents. The evidence of the Mine Experts and others, who inspected the premises subsequent to the date of the accident examined in the case in a way indicates that the respondents had not probably taken the necessary steps contemplated under Regulations 38 to 41 to prevent the accident, however strong it may be. The fact that in the circumstances of the case it was difficult for the prosecution to get independent and direct evidence cannot be a ground to dispense with such evidence. In the circumstances proved in the case the learned Magistrate, in our opinion, was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitting them. We do not see any valid grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.