NIRMAL DUTTA Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition No.7725 of 2007 is filed by A-1, Criminal Petition No.7724 of 2007 is filed by A-2 and Criminal Petition No.2581 of 2008 is filed by A-3 to A-6 who are all accused of offences punishable under Sections 72A, 72C(l)(a) and 72C(l)(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 (in short, the Act) in C.C. No.712 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothagudem. Subject-matter of these offences is fatal accident which occurred on 12.11.2006 in Venkateshkhani No.7 Incline (Mine) at 9.30 a.m. in which T. Sudhir Babu - Senior Under Manager, M. Ramanjee - Head Overman, K. Ramachander - General Mazdoor working as Cable Boy and Podugu Butchaiah - General Mazdoor working as Cable Boy died on the spot and Pratap Kumar Sharma - Continuous Miner Operator and Thomas N. Kosi - Shuttle Car Operator received serious injuries. It is alleged that during inspection and enquiry, it was revealed that while the last slice in last fender of a pillar in a depillaring panel was being worked by a Continuous Miner and Shuttle Car combination, a sudden massive roof fall measuring about 47 meters length, 13 meters breadth and 2 to 6 meters thick occurred in the goaf extending to the immediate out-bye junction, wherein six persons got trapped, out of whom four persons died instantaneously and two others sustained serious injuries who could be rescued after about five hours. It is further alleged that had the persons and machine been withdrawn from that critically dangerous phase in time when no operation was being done as required under Condition No.6.1 of the permission letter dated 17.11.2005 read with Regulation 114(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (in short, the Regulations) and ground movement monitoring and assessment been done as required under Condition No.3.1 of the permission granted under Regulation No.11 OA read with Section 18(5) of the Act, this accident could have been averted. With these allegations, the Government of India represented by the Inspector of Mines-cum-Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad Region No.1 filed the complaint in the lower Court against A-1 to A-6. A-3 was Mines Manager, A-4 was Agent, A-5 was Chief General Manager and A-6 was nominated owner of the Mine inside which the fatal accident took place. A-l was Shift-in-charge of M/s. P&H Joy Mining Equipment India Limited for continuous miner panel at this mine project. A-2 was Head, M/s. (P&H), Joy Mining Equipment India Limited (in short, P&H JMEL). Questioning the proceedings in C.C. No.712 of 2007 of the lower Court, A-l to A-6 filed these three petitions for quashing these proceedings in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) There is no dispute about factum of fatal incident which took place on 12.11.2006 at the mine in which four persons died and two persons sustained serious injuries. The dispute is regarding liability and more particularly criminal liability for this fatal accident. A-1 and A-2 disclaim their liability contending that they are working for gain on contract basis with P&H JMEL and that they have no contractual obligations with Singareni Collieries Company Limited (in short, SCCL) and that P&H JMEL is not in any way connected with operations of this mine and that as per Section 18 of the Act, liability is on owner, agent and Manager of the Mine. On the other hand, A-3 to A-6 contend that they are not liable for the fatal accident in the mine because operations in the mine were being monitored by A-1 and A-2 representing M/s. Joy Mining Machinery Limited, U.K. (in short, JMML). A-1 and A-2 further contended that contract between JMML and P&H JMEL is only a supply contract for supply of material at this mine and nothing more. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into defence of A-l and A-2 based on private documents between JMML and P&H JMEL. It is for them to produce those documents relating to contract between JMML and P & H JMEL and prove those contracts together with terms contained therein during trial of the case before the Magistrate. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC cannot undertake pre-trial of the case relating to defence of A-1 and A-2. It is well settled principle of law that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court is expected to take the prosecution allegations on their face value and see whether the complaint made out the offences with which the accused are proposed to be charged therein. This Court is also precluded from entertaining controversial questions of fact and decide the same in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Section 72-A of the Act prescribes punishment for contravention of any regulation or bye-law or order made thereunder relating to matters specified in Clauses (d), (i), (m), (n), (o), (p), (r), (s) and (u) of Section 57 of the Act. Section 72-C of the Act prescribes punishment for contravention of any provisions of the Act or Regulation or Rule or Bye-law or any order made thereunder. If the contravention resulted in loss of life then Clause (a) thereof applies; and if the contravention caused injury or danger to the persons employed in the mine or other persons in or about the mine, then Clause (c) thereof applies. As pointed out earlier, the 1st respondent who is the complainant alleges contravention of Condition No.6.1 of the permission letter dated 17.11.2005 read with Regulation No.l 14(1) of the Regulations and also Condition No.3.1 of the said permission letter issued under Regulation No. 100-A of the Regulation.