UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEEPAK JATIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 5th May, 2006, whereby the revision petition preferred by the non-petitioners was accepted. A complaint was filed for violation of various provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 (for short "Act of 1952") and Rules and Regulations made there under. On filing of complaint, cognizance of offence was taken against all the accused. A revision petition was then filed on behalf of three accused and has been accepted. It was precisely on the ground that the complaint was filed against the owner and the agents, whereas if violation of any provision of the Act and the Rules was made, the Manager and others responsible officers can be prosecuted. The order of cognizance of offence against three revision petitioners was thus quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India submits that the impugned order has been passed in ignorance of Sections 18, 72(c) and 76 of the Act of 1952. The Court below ignored the duties and responsibilities of the owners/agents and managers, as provided under Section 18 of the Act of 1952.

(3.) A specific reference of Section 18(5) of the Act of 1952 was given to show as to who would be responsible in case of contravention of provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws and the orders issued there under.