STATE Vs. J N UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the revision against the trial Court's Order deleting the names of the non -applicants -accused Nos 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 from the complaint, filed by duly authorised Inspector of Mines, for prosecution of the non -applicants -accused under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952.

(2.) ON 8 -5 -1979, accident had occurred in Shivpuri Mines, resulting in the death of a tripman viz. Shri Tarendra Kumar. It was alleged in the complaint that due to the negligence of these non -applicants -accused, proper precautions, as enjoined by the provisions of the Mines Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, had not been taken in the matter of shot firing. Objection was taken in the trial Court that under section 18(2) of the Mines Act, only the "owner", "agent" and "Manager" of the Mine could be held guilty of any contravention of the provisions of the Act, the non -applicants -accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could not be held liable for prosecution, and as such, the names of these non -applicants -accused were liable to be deleted. The trial Court, relying on this Court's earlier decision in R. R. Sharma and two others v. The State (Record of the Misc. Case placed below), held that the complaint, in the present case, could be filed only against the 'owner', 'agent' and the 'manager', and since, the non -applicants -accused Nos. 4 to 7 and 1, were not covered under the definitions of either "owner" or "agent" or "manager", their names were liable to be deleted from the complaint; and as such, were ordered to be deleted. Hence now, the present revision preferred by the State (Government of India).

(3.) IT has been argued before me that this Court's earlier decision viz. R. R. Sharma and two others v. The State (supra), relied on by the trial Court, does not propound the correct view of the law and the word "whoever", as used in section 72C(1), is wide in its import, covering not only the "owner", "agent" and "manager" but also, any other person, whosoever he be, who might have contravened the provisions of the Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder. In support of this argument, copy of the Order dated 1 -3 -1980 of Revision Petition No. 30 of 1980 of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), has been placed before me. This decision of the Bombay High Court is found to have considered this Court's earlier decision (Misc. Cr. Case No. 423 of 1975) dated 16 -10 -1978 decided by Hon'ble Shri Chandra Pal Singh, J. (supra), and has expressed its disagreement with the interpretation of the word "whoever" as mentioned in section 72C(1) of the Mines Act.