IN RE: LINGAREDDI VENKATAREDDY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a batch of six criminal revision cases which have been referred to us by the Sub - Divisional Magistrate. Guntur under S. 432, Cri. P. C. The facts leading up to the reference are as follows: The Junior Inspector of Mines, Nellore, filed these charge -sheets against the owner and manager of the Haranath Gopal Mica Mine, situated at Chengannapalli Village, Rapur Taluq of Nellore District for the contravention of certain rules made under the Indian Mines Act of 1923 and stated to be punishable under Ss.. 73 and 66, Indian Mines Act (Act 35 of 1952).

(2.) MR . Gangadhara Rao, who appeared for the accused in three of these cases did not urge before us the point relating to discrimination between male and female employees. His main points were two -fold. He urged in the first instance that rules and regulations made under the earlier Act cannot be described as a 'law in force' within the meaning of Art. 20 of the Constitution and that the accused cannot be convicted under a law merely deemed to be in force.

(3.) MR . Munikanniah appearing for the prosecution has referred to the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in 'State v. Kunja Behari', : AIR 1954 Pat 371 (PB) (D). That was a case where validity of the Mines Creche Rules and the Pit -head Bath Rules made in the year 1946 under the Mines Act of 1923 was questioned. The learned Judges who decided the case were not called upon to determine the validity of the rules with reference to the new Act 35 of 1952 as the alleged offences in that case took place before the new Act came into force.