R M MAYILVASAGAM Vs. STATE [GOVERNMENT OF INDIA]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.678 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram, Chennai. Petitioner is A1 / owner of Mine.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 15.11.2005, there was a fatal accident at Thalakananchery Stone Quarry No.3 (S.F.No.139 Part) owned by one RM Mayilvasagam. One Shri Niranjan Sharma, Dy.Director of Mines Safety, Chennai Region, Chennai, who is also an Inspector of Mines, inspected the site of accident on 17.11.2005, 18.11.2005 and 13.03.2006 and enquired into the causes and circumstances which lead to the accident and found that while four persons was engaged for loading a tipper at the bottom of about 41.6m high vertical die (bench) consisting of weathered & jointed stone (Charkonite), suddenly, a mass of stone, detached from edge of high side, at height of about 41m above, fell over one of them, including serious bodily injuries, to which he succumbed 7 days in the hospital.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint is not at all maintainable as the alleged offence said to have committed on 15.11.2005 and it came to the knowledge of the respondent is on 17.11.2005 and complaint was filed on 10.05.2006, which does not come under the time limit framed either under Sub Section [I] or ]ii] of Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act'] and filing of the complaint on 11.08.2006 would hit by Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952, as taking cognizance was barred by law. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint, since the place of occurrence situated within the police limits of pazhavanthangal Police Station, which comes under the jurisdictional limits of learned Judicial Magistrate at Alandur. In fact, the said Judicial Magistrate at Alandur given a verdict of acquittal aginast the petitioner in a case tried on a Police report preferred by the Pazhavanthangal Police on the same set of facts in C.C.No.301 of 2006, dated 05.07.2006, under Section 304(A) of IPC. The petitioner was already tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Alandur for an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC., in C.C.No.301 of 2006 and putting the petitioner for the trial of the present complaint preferred by the respondent herein before the learned Magistrate at Tambaram in C.CNo.678 of 2006 on the same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy and the same would hit be Section 300 of Cr.P.C., Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitutional Law and also by Section 26 of General Clauses Act. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr reported in, 2011 2 CTC 459 and in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in, 2012 LawSuit(SC) 236, prayed for quashment.