R.K. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of Criminal Case No. 1001 of 1963 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek. The complaint has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Regional Inspector of Mines, Parasia Inspection Region, District Chhindwara.

(2.) The criminal prosecution relates to an accident which took place on 1-6-1963 in a mine at Junawani in Taluq Ramtek, District Nagpur. The mine belongs to the Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited, Calcutta. As a result of the report that was received by the Inspector of Mines, he immediately visited the site and after making inquiry and collecting evidence ultimately lodged a criminal case under section 72C (1) (a) and (c) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with section 18 thereof, and Regulation 41 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. The complaint has been tiled against six persons. The accused No. 1 is Shri R. K. Gupta who is one of the Directors of the Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited. Accused No. 2 is Shri N.K. Bnansali, who is the agent and accused No. 3 is Shri J. R. Bhalerao who is the Manager of the mine. Accused No. 4 is a contractor who was entrusted with the work of the particular excavation where the accident took place. Accused No. 5 is the Mate and the accused No. 6 is the Foreman of the mine. Accused No. 1 was nominated as the Director under section 76 of the Mines Act and this nomination was made on 18-3-1957. It is common ground that this nomination has not been withdrawn and no notice of the cancellation as contemplated by section 76 was ever served upon the Inspector of Mines. That being the position, the Inspector of Mines impleaded, among others, accused No. 1 R. K. Gupta as the Director of the Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited as their nominee.

(3.) A preliminary objection that is raised on behalf of the accused No. 1 to the continuance of the prosecution is that there has been a material change in the law and as a result of the amendment of the Mines Act he can no longer be prosecuted under the provisions of section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, It is admitted that before the amendment of the definition of the word "owner" Shri Gupta would have been perhaps the proper person against whom a charge-sheet could be sent up. However, the amendment of the definition of the word "owner" in section 2(1) by the Amending Act LXII of 1959 now materially altered the situation.