UTPAL KUMAR MAJI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.M.A. Case No.79 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance dtd. 17/3/2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

(3.) The complaint case was filed alleging therein that a Security Guard of a private security agency engaged by an outsourcing agency was hit by a tipper on a road being used for transportation of coal by consumer truck, received serious bodily injuries to which he succumbed after one hour while being treated in a hospital. The enquiry further revealed that had corrective action been ensured by defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor, in accordance with the provisions of the Sec. 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulation 41(9) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, this accident could have been averted. It was further alleged that in contravention of provisions of Sec. 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, accused no.1, being the Agent of the Mine, failed to conduct the mine operations in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations, rules, by-laws and others made thereunder by ensuring corrective action the purpose defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor. It was also alleged that in contravention of provisions of Regulation 41(9) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 read with provisions of Sec. 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, accused no.2, being the Manager of the Mine, failed to conduct the out or the purpose of mine operations by performing such other duties as have been prescribed in that behalf under the Act, the regulations, or orders made thereunder, in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations, rules, by-laws and others made thereunder by ensuring corrective action defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor. The above contraventions constitute offences, which is punishable under Ss. 73 and 72A of the Mines Act, 1952 and the accused persons are severally and vicariously liable for the same.