S. AIKAT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with C.M.A. Case No. 359/2001 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.4.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for the offence under Sections 72(A), 72(C)(1)(a), 72(C)(1)(b) of the Mines Act 1952 against the petitioner and others and also all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, presently pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that Opp. Party Mo. 2 filed a complaint dated 12.4.2001 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 16.4.2001 against the petitioner and 11 others for the alleged offence under Sections 72(A), 72(C)(1)(a), 72(C)(1)(b) of the Mines Act 1952. The particular of the offence as narrated by the Opposite party No. 2 is that an information about occurrence of accident at Dabari Colliery was received on 3.11.2000. An enquiry/inspection was made by the Director of Mines and Safety with other officials who are also inspector of mines under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952. During course of inquiry, it was revealed that three workers were engaged in drilling and three other workers were engaged in charging of short holes simultaneously at the development face beneath the unsupported roof. Suddenly, a mass of the roof of the description detailed in the complaint fell down inflicting fatal injuries to four persons apart from injuries to the other persons. In the complaint, it is alleged that there is contravention of the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 as well as the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned CJM, Dhanbad, by order dated 16.4.2001 took cognizance against the petitioner including other persons for an offence as alleged under Sections 72(A), 72(C)(1)(a), 72(C)(1)(b) of the Mines Act 1952.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring the complaint, submitted that the present petitioner is shown as accused No. 5 and has been described as deemed agent. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 18 of the Mines Act 1952, which deals with the duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. It is submitted that the present petitioner does not fall in description of Section 18 of the Mines Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Regulation 8A of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 which provides the method and procedure for appointment of agent as well as deemed agent and as per the said provision, the statement in the prescribed format in Form No. 1 is required to be made within one month specifying the name of agent. By referring Annexures-2 and 3 to this petition, which are the Form No. 1 under Regulation 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1954, it is submitted that no where the name of the petitioner has been indicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the judgment dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2004 (G.N. Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.) and submitted that the facts are almost similar and the said decision is applicable to the instant case. By referring paragraph No. 7, 11 to 19 and 22 to 26 to the said judgment it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner and therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned court below may be quashed and set aside.