LAWS(PAT)-1967-5-9

STATE Vs. B L OHRI

Decided On May 12, 1967
STATE Appellant
V/S
B.L.OHRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents B.L. Ohri, I. D. Ambastha and Lachman Singh, at the time of the occurrence, were the Chief Mining Engineer, the Agent and the Manager respectively of Kurharbaree Colliery, Giridih, under the control of the National Coal Development Corporation. The first two of these are officers of the Government of India and were working under the Corporation on deputation. All the three were tried and convicted for an offence under Section 73 of the Mines Act 1962 for contravention of (1) Regulation No. 100 of Coal Mines Regulations, 1967, and (ii) Section 29 of the Mines Act read with Rule 47 of the Mines Rules, 1955, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, by the Munsif Magistrate, first class, Hazaribagh. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the convictions and sentences passed against them and the State of Bihar has preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that the National Coal Development Corporation obtained permission of the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, for carrying on depillaring operation in the Jakotiabad pit and another pit of the Kurharbaree Colliery as required by Regulation 100. The permission was granted subject to certain conditions by a letter dated 4th July, 1960 (Ext. 6). By letter dated 31st of January, 1961 (Ext. 6/1), the Chief Inspector of Mines withdrew the aforesaid permission as in his opinion some of the conditions prescribed in the letter (Ext. 6) had been contravened. On the representation of the Corporation the permission was again restored on the 14th of February, 1961. The letter (Ext. 6/1) reached the respondents on 3rd of February, 1963 but in spite of if they continued depillaring operations during the period 3rd of February, 1961 to 13th of February, 1961. This act of theirs amounted to contravention of Regulation 100. The 12th of February 1961, which was a Sunday, was a weekly day of rest for workmen but the respondents employed and took work from some workmen including one Pokhan Dusadh who met with an accident. This was in contravention of Section 29 of the Mines Act read with Rule 47 of the Mines Rules.

(3.) The defence of the respondents was that they were not guilty of any offence inasmuch as no depillaring operation was done after the receipt of Ext. 6/1 and before the restoration of permission on 14-2-1961 and as 12th of February, 1961 was not a day of weekly rest. The following questions of law were also raised by the respondents in their defence: