BIRENDRA KUMAR BHAKAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the F.I. R. of Malpahari RS. Case No. 74 of 2002 and also for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of this application are that informant 'snephew Khabirul Sheikh had gone as usual to work at the stone mines with other labourers. At about 2.00 P.M. the informant got information that due to explosion in the mines of Sri Hiralal Bhakat, 5 -6 persons have sustained serious injuries. He immediately rushed to the site where he found a damaged dumper and as he got information that all the injured have been removed to Rajgram Hospital for treatment, he reached the said hospital where he found his nephew and one Mantu Sheikh dead and he also saw other seriously injured labourers there. Further case of the prosecution is that while labourers were loading boulders in the dumper at one O 'clock, suddenly there was explosion in the northern side of the mine and big pieces of stones flew from the place of blast and hit the dumper. According to the informant, blasting was the outcome of causing explosion in the mines without taking proper precaution and vigilance by the owner, Mate and Manager, who is petitioner. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a case bearing Malpahari P.S. Case No. 74 of 2002 was instituted against three persons for the offence punishable under sections 324/307/ 304/427/334 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(3.) IT is further submitted that there was no violation of any of the provisions of Explosive Substance Act so as to attract the prosecution of the petitioner for the loss of life and bodily injury to persons. It was further submitted that police had no business to institute an F.I.R. because the mining operations are guided by special law and that Section 72 -C of the Mines Act, 1952 is the penal section and the accused can be tried under section 72 -C of the Mines Act, 1952 only and not under the General Law. In this connection, reliance was placed upon 2002(2) East Cr.C. 77.