1. Criminal proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952 for violating regulations following a fatal colliery accident. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th February, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Chief Inspector of Mines and another etc. Appellants
Versus
Karam Chand Thapar etc. Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for the Appellants (In Cr. As. Nos. 98 and 101 of 59), Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. C. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates, with him), for the Appellants (In Cr. As. Nos. 102 to 106 of 59), M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for the Respondents (In Cr. As. Nos. 102 to 106 of 59).
Advocates:
G.S.PATHAK, N.S.BINDRA, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE
G.S.PATHAK, N.S.BINDRA, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE
Regulations made under a repealed Act survive upon re-enactment via the General Clauses Act. In safety legislation, "any one of the directors" is interpreted as "every one" to ensure full accountability, and "occupier" excludes those possessing property on behalf of another.
Headnote:(A) Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 2(1)(1), 17, 18, 22, 61, 73, 74, 76; Mines Act, 1923 - Section 31(4); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 24 - Repeal and re-enactment of statute - Survival of regulations - Whether regulations made under a repealed Act continue in force upon re-enactment of the Act - Section 24 of the General Clauses Act provides that rules made under a repealed Act continue in force unless inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions or superseded by new rules - A provision stating regulations have effect "as if enacted in the Act" does not prevent the operation of the General Clauses Act and does not mean regulations are repealed along with the parent Act. (Paras 8-21)
(B) Mines Act, 1952 - Section 2(1)(1) - Definition of "Owner" - Whether managing agents of a company owning a mine fall within the definition of "owner" as an "occupier" - "Occupier" refers to possession of the same character as a proprietor or lessee, not possession on behalf of another - Managing agents exercising possession on behalf of the company are not "occupiers" and thus not "owners". (Paras 5-7)
(C) Mines Act, 1952 - Section 76 - Interpretation of "any one of the directors" - Whether the phrase means "only one" or "every one" - In the context of a penal statute aimed at ensuring safety and accountability, "any one" is interpreted as "every one" to ensure that all persons performing the functions of an individual owner are held responsible - Such interpretation is consistent with the object of the legislation and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 27-38)
(D) Constitution of India - Article 20(1) - Law in force - Whether regulations deemed to be made under a re-enacted Act are "laws in force" at the time of the commission of the offence - If regulations were factually in operation at the time of the act, they are laws in force; a deeming provision for continuity does not create a retrospective law prohibited by Article 20(1). (Paras 23-25)
Facts of the case:
Following a fatal accident in a colliery, criminal proceedings were initiated against the manager, agent, directors of the owning company, and directors of the managing agents for violating safety regulations. The accused challenged the proceedings on the grounds that the regulations had ceased to exist upon the repeal of the parent Act, that managing agents were not "owners," and that the prosecution of multiple directors was not permitted under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the regulations survived the repeal of the 1923 Act via the General Clauses Act. Managing agents are not "owners" as they possess the mine on behalf of the company. The phrase "any one of the directors" means "every one of the directors," allowing for the prosecution of all directors of the owning company.
Issues: 1. Whether regulations made under a repealed Act survive if the Act is re-enacted. 2. Whether managing agents qualify as "owners" under the definition of "occupier." 3. Whether "any one of the directors" in Section 76 implies a limit to only one director or extends to all directors. 4. Whether such prosecution violates Article 20(1) or Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: Regulations made under a repealed Act continue in force under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act unless superseded or inconsistent. The term "occupier" in the definition of "owner" excludes those in possession on behalf of another. The phrase "any one" in a statutory provision can mean "every one" depending on the context and the object of the legislation, especially when the goal is to ensure comprehensive accountability for safety.
Result: Appeals by the government regarding the prosecution of all directors allowed; appeals by the manager and agent dismissed; appeals regarding the prosecution of managing agents dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Validity of regulations after repeal of parent Act — applicability of Article 20(1) — liability of managing agents and multiple directors under Section 76. (Para 1 , 10 , 23 , 28 )
3. Harmonious construction of Section 31(4) of Mines Act, 1923 and Section 24 of General Clauses Act — interpretation of occupier and any one. (Para 5 , 6 , 13 , 34 )
4. Regulations under a repealed Act survive re-enactment via General Clauses Act — any one of the directors implies all directors are liable for safety violations. (Para 9 , 21 , 38 )
5. Prosecution of all directors upheld — managing agents' liability quashed — appeals of manager and agent dismissed. (Para 7 , 26 , 40 )
6. Do regulations made under a repealed Act survive if the Act is re-enacted?
Yes, under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, rules or regulations made under a repealed Act continue in force, deemed to be made under the re-enacted provisions, provided they are not inconsistent with the new Act and have not been superseded. (Para 8 , 9 , 20 , 21 )
7. Does a managing agent qualify as an occupier or owner of a mine under the Mines Act?
No. An occupier must possess the mine on their own behalf, such as a proprietor or lessee. Possession on behalf of another, as a servant or agent, does not make a person an occupier or owner. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Does the phrase any one of the directors in Section 76 mean only one or all directors?
In the context of safety legislation intended to ensure accountability, the phrase is interpreted as every one of the directors, meaning all directors of a public company can be prosecuted and punished. (Para 34 , 35 , 38 )
9. Does the deeming provision of the General Clauses Act violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution?
No. Article 20(1) prohibits conviction for acts that were not offences under a law factually in operation at the time. Since the regulations were factually in operation, the deeming provision does not create a retrospective offence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : On February 5, 1955, there was a tragic accident in the Amlabad Colliery, in Manbhum District, in the State of Bihar, as a result of which 52 persons lost their lives and one escaped with injuries. The court of enquiry which was appointed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the accident submitted its report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of some of the regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. This report was duly published under S. 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the Government of India informed the manager and the agent of the colliery that a court of enquiry was being constituted under cl. (a) of the Regulation 48 to hold an inquiry into their conduct. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against 14 persons including the manager and the agent of the colliery, all the directors of the company which was the owner of the colliery and the directors of the managing agents of that company. The complaints alleged violation by the 14 accused of several regulations out of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. There were two separate complaints in respect of the violation of different regulations. It was alleged in one of the complaints that the accused persons had by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein committed offences under S. 73 of the Mines Act, 1952, the other complaint alleged that by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein the accused persons had committed offences under Ss. 73 & 74 of the Mines Act, 1952. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and issued processes against all the 14 persons on May 23, 1956. Six of the accused persons, Lala Karam Chand Thapper, H. P. Poddar, Jagat Ram Sharma, Kumud Ranjan Dutt, H. V. Varma and U. Mehta filed applications before the High Court of Patna for the issue of appropriate writs or orders for quashing the criminal proceedings. The main ground on which these different applications were based was that the regulations for the alleged violation of which the complaints were lodged had ceased to have any legal existence long before the date of the alleged violation by the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923, under which they had admittedly been made. Another ground taken by all the applicants was that the prosecution was in violation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. In the application by two directors of the company owning the mine, Lala Karam Chand Thapper and H. P. Poddar a further point was taken that the prosecution of all the directors was not permitted by the Mines Act, 1952. The directors of the managing agents raised in their applications the point that the menaging agents not being owners of the colliery the directors of the managing agents should not be prosecuted.
2. The High Court rejected the applicants contention that the Regulations framed under S. 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, ceased to have legal existence after the repeal of that Act. It however accepted the contention of the managing agents directors that they were not liable to prosecution. The High Court also held on a consideration of the provision of S. 76 of the 1952 Act that all the directors of the company which owned the colliery could not be prosecuted and only one to be chosen by the complainant out of all the directors could be proceeded against. On these findings the High Court dismissed the applications of the manager and the agent, and allowed the applications of the directors of the managing agents. In the two applications by the two directors of the colliery company (Lala Karam Chand Thapper and H. P. Poddar) it gave a direction requiring the respondents 2 and 3 before it, that is, the Chief Inspector of Mines ,and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, "to choose one of the directors of the company for being prosecuted against and to remove the name of the other directors from the catego
