G D BHATTAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision cases arise out of three prosecutions under Section 73 of the Indian. Mines Act. There are altogether six petitioners, the first five of whom are common to all the three cases. The sixth petitioner in Cases Nos. 304 of 1956 and 297 of 1956 is K. N. Nag, whereas in the third case, namely Case No. 303 of 1936 the sixth petitioner is K. P. Chatterjee. Admittedly the first four petitioners are the directors of Messrs. Bhattars Agency, Ltd., Managing Agents of Ghusick and Muslia Collieries Ltd., owners of Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery. M. L. Daga. the fifth petitioner in all the cases is the Agent of the Kalapahari Colliery and the Muslia Colliery and K. N. Nag, petitioner No. 6 in the first two cases is the Manager of the Kalapahari Colliery. K. P. Chatterjee is the Manager of the Muslia Colliery.

(2.) The first prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules. 1946 in respect of the Kalapahari Colliery. The second prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Mines Creche Rules. 1946 in respect of the Kalapahari Colliery and the third prosecution was for contravention of Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Mines Creche Rules., 1946 in respect of the Muslia Colliery.

(3.) It is the case for the prosecution that in the first case the pit-head bath, which is required to be constructed by the owners within a specified time was not constructed and there was thus a contravention of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules. 1946. In the second and third cases the case for the prosecution is that in respect of the Kalapahari Colliery the Creches were not set up as required under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946.