IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of conditions which have to be obeyed always, shall become continuing offence for purpose of Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswamy, J.-Aggrieved by the judgment of Criminal Appeal no. 24/81 dated 26.8.1988 on the file of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.

2. The appellant preferred a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Regulation No. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation"). The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be stated in brief to appreciate the contentions raised before us. The facts are as under :

Kamptee Colliery originally was owned by the Oriental Coal Company Limited. At the instance of the agent of Oriental Coal Company Limited, the Director General of Mines Safety granted permission on 2.1.1971 under Regulation 100(1) of the Regulations to split pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No.1 seam in the area. Later on, the agent of the Oriental Coal Company Limited applied for certain modifications in conditions Nos. 5 and 6 which was granted on 14.6.1971. Subsequently, on 30.1.1973, the possession of the coal mines was taken over by the Central Government and the ownership of the said coal mines vested in the Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973. The Deputy Director of Mines at Nagpur made an inspection on 2.4.1974 and found that the sizes of split galleries were about 8.2 metres. It was in violation of condition No. 1 imposed by the Director of Mines Safety. The agent was called upon to explain the violation by the Joint Director of Mines Safety by his letter dated 30.4.1974. A reply was sent on 13.5.1974. Explanation was called for from respondent No. 1 on 10.8.1974. No reply was received, inspite of several reminders. The Deputy Director of Mines Safety again inspected the mines in question on 26.8.1975, along with the agent, and found the violation of condition No.1 continuing and also found that the adjacent galleries were not kept stowed of the pillar where splitting had commenced.

3. After the taking over the mines as mentioned above, the coal mine in question formed part of the Western Coal Fields Limited. As the concerned persons had not complied with the conditions subject to which the splitting of pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing was granted, the Inspector (now, Deputy Director of Mines) filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtak, Nagpur, alleging contravention of the conditions of permission. The Trial Court framed charges accordingly to which respondent Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Two principal contentions were advanced in defence before the Trial Court. They were that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the Act and in any case, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not in management of the coal mines in question when the alleged offence was alleged to have been committed and, therefore, they could not be criminally proceeded against.

4. The learned Trial Judge accepted both the contentions of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and consequently acquitted them. On appeal preferred by the appellant, the High Court also confirmed the acquittal accepting the same contentions. Hence the present appeal.

5. Before dealing with the question of law that arises for our consideration, we want to express our anguish that we did not get the required assistance in this case. The appellant except filing the judgment of the High Court and the grounds for special leave did not take any step, inspite of passing of 13 years, to file other important relevant papers to help the Court in deciding the issue, i.e. the judgment of the Trial Court, the charge sheet filed in the Trial Court, the evidence - both oral and documentary, reply given by the agent for the initial notice etc. They are all required to fully appreciate the issue raised before us. The further agony is that inspite of notices served on the respondents, none appeared before us to answer the contentions raised in