R B RAM RATTAN SETH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been referred by the Additional District Magistrate at Dharamsala.

(2.) THE facts are that four persons, Ram Rattan Managing Director, Khazana Ram Contractor, K. N. Khanna Agent, and Gomti Das Manager of a state mine known as Naguni State Mine owned and worked by the Kangra Valley Slate Company Limited, were prosecuted on the allegation that they had wilfully omitted to take the precautions laid down in Regulations Nos. 38, 41 and 91 of the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations of 1926 is a result of which a workman received fatal injuries on the 24th of April, 1956, the complaint being filed by the Public prosecutor, Dharamsala, under the instructions of the Chief Inspector of Mines in India.

(3.) THE preliminary objection was raised that the above regulations of 1926 were framed under the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Mines Act of 1923, which had been repealed and replaced by the Indian Mines Act of 1952 under which admittedly no fresh rules and regulations had yet been framed when this case started. It was contended that the prosecution of the accused violated the provisions of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution which provides that no person should be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. The point taken was that the rules and regulations framed under the Act of 1923 were no longer "a law in force" at the time of commission of the act tried as an offence in spite of the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, which seem to rebut this contention. The section in question reads --