T. Yesuratnam and Others vs The Director of Mines Safety, Government of India and Another

This petition is filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 185/1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu, Khammam District and also in Crl.R.P. No. 38 of 1996, dated 12-12-1996 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petition are, briefly, as follows :-

The Director of Mines Safety, Government of India, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein filed complaint against the petitioners for an offence under sections 72(A) and 72(C)(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu alleging that the first petitioner is the Mining Sirdar, the second petitioner is the Overman, the third petitioner is the Undermanager, the fourth petitioner is the Manager and fifth petitioner is the Agent of 21 Incline mine belonging to M/s. Singareni Colleries Company Limited and they are bound to conduct all mining operations in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, Rules, Regulations and Orders made thereunder. It is further alleged that the complainant received information about the occurrence of the accident on 28-9-1994 at 21 Incline mine and the Deputy Director of Mines Safety visited the mine on 30-9-1994 and on subsequent dates and enquired into the cause and circumstances of the said accident and found the following violations which resulted in occurrence of the accident :-

(i) In contravention of Regn. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, read with condition No. 2.1.2(a) of Depillaring Permission Letter No. KH/P-100/10/90/2154, dated 31-8-1990, the accused-Mining Sirdar, Overman, Undermanager had not maintained rib against the standing goaf in spite of being aware of the dangers arising out of it;

(ii) In contravention of Regn. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, read with condition No. 2.1.2(a) of Depillaring Permission Letter No. KH/P-100/10/90/2154, dated 31-8-1990, the accused - Agent and Manager had not curbed the practice of complete knocking down of the rib against the standing goaf in spite of being aware of the dangers arising out of it.

Therefore, he filed complaint on 30-3-1995 against the petitioners under the said provisions of law alleging that they are liable for punishment under the aforementioned sections of Mines Act.

The learned Magistrate took the case on file as CC No. 185/1995, issued summons to the petitioners and they appeared and contended alleging that the complaint was filed beyond six months and barred by limitation. Then the complainant, first respondent, filed a petition to condone the delay of two days in filing the complaint and the petitioners resisted the said petition and the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition vide his order dated 27-8-1996.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed Crl. Revision Petition No. 38 of 1996 before the Sessions Judge, Khammam and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that there is no delay in filing the complaint and dismissed the said revision vide his orders dated 12-12-1996.

Now the petitioners approached this Court assailing the order of the learned Addl. Judge dated 12-12-1996 in Crl.R.P. No. 38/1996.

The learned Senior counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the accident occurred on 28-9-1994 and was informed to the complainant by phone on the same day and sent telegram which was said to have been received on 29-9-1994 and admittedly, the complaint was filed on 30-3-1995 and the limitation for filing the complaint is six months and thus it is clearly barred by limitation and the learned Magistrate erroneously took the case on file and the complainant is not entitled to file petition to condone the delay of two days subsequently and the learned Magistrate has erroneously allowed the said petition. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also incorrectly held that there is no limitation as the Deputy Inspector of Minses visited the mines on 30-9-1994 and the complaint was filed on 30-3-1995 and requested to set aside the said order. He further submitted that it is not a continuing offence to take into consideration the starting point of limitation on subsequent date of accident.

But the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, Ms. Chaya Devi, submitted that the occurrence of the accident by itself does not amount to offence and the concerned authorities have to enquire into the cause of accident and if it is found, during enquiry, that concerned authorities, have failed to follow the Rules and Regulations and other provisions of the Mines Act, consequently the accident occurred resulting in death or bodily injuries to any employee therein, then only the question of filing of the complaint u/s 72C of the Mines Act will arise. She further submitted that the concerned Officer visited the mine on 30-9-1994 and on subsequent dates and completed the enquiry on 2-10-1994 and found that there are certain violations and non-compliance of certain regulations resulting in occurrence of the accident and death of a person. Hence, the complaint was filed on 30-3-1995 within six months and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that it is not barred by limitation, and thus there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and she relied on a decision State State Vs. V.L. Jain and Others, .

It is useful to extract Section 79 of the Mines Act, and reads as follows :-

"....... No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint therefore has been made :

(i) Within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or;

(ii) within six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, or

(iii) in any case in which the accused is or was a Public Servant and previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of any other authority is necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under any law for the time being in force, within three months of the date on which such sanction is received by the Chief Inspector; or

(iv) in any case where a court of inquiry has been appointed by the Central Government u/s 24, within one year after the date of the publication of the report referred to in sub-section (4) of that section, whichever is later;

Explanation :-

(a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ......"

Therefore, it is clear from the perusal of the above provision of law that the complaint has to be filed within six months from the date on which the offence alleged is said to have been committed or came to the knowledge of the Inspector, etc.

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 72 of the Mines Act and it reads as under :-

"....... 72-C : Special Provision for contravention of law with dangerous results :-

(1) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation, rule or bye-law or of any order made thereunder other than an order made under sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 22 shall be punishable :

(a) if such contravention results in loss of life, with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both;

(b) if such contravention results in serious bodily injury with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both; or

(c) if such contravention otherwise causes injury or danger to persons employed in the mine or other persons in or about the mine, with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. ....."

Therefore, it is manifest from the above provision that the offence contemplated u/s 72C is only if there is any contravention of any provisions of Mines Act or Regulations or Rules or Bye-laws or any Order made thereunder, except an order made under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 22 and consequently, any contravention of such Rules or Bye-laws results in loss of life or injuries to any person occurs, the offence contemplated u/s 72C and filing of the complaint for punishment will arise and simply because, the accident occurred that by itself is not an offence as provided u/s 72C. Hence, it follows that the question of commission of offence under the said provision can be known only after conducting enquiry and finding that there is any such contravention as referred to supra. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also took the same view and held as under :-

"........... Section 79 only contemplates making of a complaint within six months and in a case falling under Clause (ii) it has to be made within six months from the date on which the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. It is clear from the statements contained in the complaint that in the present case it came to the knowledge of the Inspector after the enquiry was completed on 14th April, 1973 and as the complaint was made to the Magistrate on 7th September, 1973, it was made clearly within time ........"

It is not in dispute that the said accident occurred on 28-9-1994 and the same was conveyed on phone message on the same day and sent telegram which was said to have been received on 29-9-1994 and the concerned Officer visited the mine on 30-9-1994 and on subsequent dates and completed the enquriy on 2-10-1994 and found the violations mentioned in the complaint resulting in the death of one person and hence, the complaint was filed on 30-3-1995 within a period of six months. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the same.

Filing of the petition subsequent to the taking of cognizance of the offence by the complainant seems to be an abundant caution and order passed therein is of no effect, as the complaint was filed within six months.

Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.

In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.