K.N. NAG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions are on behalf of K. N. Nag, M. L. Daga and G. D. Bhattar, Manager, Agent and Managing Director, respectively, of Radhamadhabpore Colliery at Asansol. They were prosecuted before a Magistrate of the First Class, Asansol, upon a charge under Section 15(3) (b) of the Bengal Mining Settlements Act, 1912, for contravention of Rr. 25 (i) and 27 (ii) of the bye -laws issued under that Act. The Magistrate found them guilty and convicted them under the said section and sentenced them, - the first two to pay a fine each of Rs. 60/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and the third G. D. Bhattar to pay a fine of Rs. 150/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE Prosecution case, briefly, was that the Radhamadhabpore Colliery within Asansol Mining Settlement area was owned by Ghasick Chand Moslea Collieries Limited of which G. D. Bhattar was the Managing Director. The Sanitary Inspector attached to the Asansol Mines Board of Health inspected the Colliery on the 13th of December, 1954, and found that no bed for indoor patients had been provided for accommodation of the sick and the injured. The allegation further was that, although under the bye -laws the Colliery was to have provided in view of its population figure three Isolation huts, only two such huts had in fact, been provided. A report was accordingly made to the Chief Sanitary Officer by the Sanitary Inspector find the attention of the colliery authorities was drawn to these defects but nothing was done to remedy them whereafter a second inspection was held en the 22nd of January, 1955, which was followed by a complaint against these petitioners. The defence denied the charges made and pleaded innocence. Their case further was that they could not be convicted under the bye -laws issued under the Bengal Mining Settlements Act, 1912.

(3.) MR . Mukherjee appearing in support of these Rules has contended that the petitioners could not, in law, be convicted of the offences charged against them. The contention further is that neither the Managing Director nor the Agent nor the Manager could be held liable under the law for omission to do what was required to be done in accordance with the bye -laws. There was another point raised which is of a more fundamental character and that related to the validity of the bye -laws themselves. It was argued that the bye -laws, particularly those under which the convictions have been had, were in excess of powers conferred by the parent Act, namely, the Bengal Mining Settlements Act, 1912. These contentions require examination.