RAMESH KHANNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crim. Misc. Nos. 4108/97R and 4050/97R have arisen out of the same case, being Katras P. S. Case No. 334/95. Therefore they have been heard together and this common judgment shall govern both of them. Petitioners in both the cases have sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dt. 17.12.96 taking cognizance of offences against them in the abovementioned case by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court vested under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts out of which these applications have arisen are that due to unprecedented heavy downpour from the evening of 26.9.95 in the district of Dhanbad, there occurred flash flood in river Katri flowing at short distance north -west of Gajlitand colliery situated within Katras police station in the said district of Dhanbad. The result was that some kutcha protective embankments constructed on the eastern bank of the said river Katri got breached during the night and flood water of the river gushed inside the nearby pit no. 6 of the said Gajlitand colliery. 64 miners working in the second shift inside the pit/mine got entrapped and lost their lives. The tragedy was compounded by human failure on the part of the management of the colliery inasmuch as due to poor or non -functioning of boiler, mechanised cage lift system failed as the haulage machine stopped in absence of steam in the boiler and the entrapped miners could not be rescued inspite of frantic ringing of alarm bells. On getting information of the tragedy, the Officer -in -Charge of Katras Police Station named Suresh Prasad Singh went to the pit site along with other policemen and drew FIR at about 6 a.m. on 27.9.95. In the FIR that he drew the Officer -in -charge of Katras police station stated that the management of the colliery was not alive to safety measures since long inasmuch as kutcha embankments were not being maintained and properly looked after allowing rats and foxes making holes therein, which, in all probability, resulted in the breach thereof. Even though there was complaint by the miners of the first shift that water was seeping in the pit, colliery officials at the spot forced the workers of the second shift to go down in the pit to raise coal in dangerous situation. Consequently, he implicated in the FIR the Banksman, Onsetter, Boiler -operators Agent, Sr. Under Manager, Safety Officer, Sr. Assistant Colliery Manager, Overman, Mining Sardar, Engine Khalasi, and Dy. C. M. (Safety), besides these petitioners who were then posted as the Chief General Manager and Dy. Chief General Manager of Katras Area No. IV. At the relevant time, Ramesh Khanna, the petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4050/97R was the Chief General Manager and Phool Chand Sood petitioner in Crim. Misc. 4108/97R was acting as Chief General Manager of the Area in absence of the former who was on sick leave on account of fracturing his leg a few days earlier. In the FIR all the accused persons, 14 in number, were charged for commission of offence u/s. 304 read with section 34 IPC.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were in no way responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the occurrence that had taken place. They were the Chief General Manager and Dy. Chief General Manager of Katras Area of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. comprising of six collieries named West Modidih, Keshalpur, Ramkanali, Solarpur, Angar Pathra and Gajlitand at the relevant time. The petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4050/97R was on leave even prior to the tragedy and the petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4108/97R was the Dy. Chief General Manager of the said Area and was acting in place of the former temporarily between 17.9.95 and 10.10.95. In no way, they were persons responsible for the management of the Gajlitand colliery at the spot. There was absolutely no evidence of any witness in support of the allegation that the miners of the second shift were forced by the Management of the colliery, much less by these petitioners, to go inside the pit inspite of information that due to seepage of water it had become hazardous and unsafe to work therein. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC was made out even if whatever has been stated by the witnesses is taken on its face value. If anybody, it was the officials of the colliery at the spot, who were negligent and not these petitioners. It has also been contended that even if some negligence is found attributable to the petitioners in neglecting the maintenance of the embankment in between the river and the colliery, there was no immediate proximity between such negligence and the accident resulting in the death of a large number of miners entrapped inside the pit. Therefore, even offence under section 304A IPC is not made out. There is no allegation that petitioners or anybody even tried to cause disappearance of evidence for screening themselves or anybody else from the punishment for an offence so as to constitute the offence under section 201 IPC. The learned counsel submitted that while taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind to the materials collected in course of investigation and the relevant provisions of law. This complete absence of application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is eloquent from the fact that he has taken cognizance for commission of offences punishable under sections 126, 127 and 128 of the Mining Act, although there is no such enactment. Indeed, there is Coal Mines Regulation of 1957 and Regulations 126, 127 and 128 thereof make provisions for taking certain safety measures in respect of inundation of a mine by flood, external or internal. The learned counsel has submitted that contravention of those Regulations are made punishable under section 72 -C of the Mines Act. But prosecution of an Agent, Owner or Manager of any colliery for any offence under the Act is permissible only at the instance of the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or an Inspector authorised by the Chief Inspector. Similarly, prosecution for the offence under the Boilers Act is permissible only with previous sanction of the Chief Boiler! Inspector. Therefore, even the cognizance of offences under the Mines Act and Boilers Act was bad.