JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Apart from the questions of law, this appeal raises a serious issue of process re-engineering and case management, a concern that we need to address.

2. A criminal complaint was filed against the Appellant G.N. Verma on 30th August 2000. He sought quashing of the complaint which the High Court declined on 19th September 2002. Special leave to appeal against the said order was granted by this Court on 27th January 2004.

3. Despite the fact that this Court did not pass any interim order staying the proceedings before the Trial Judge, we were informed that the criminal complaint has made absolutely no progress over the last more than thirteen years. We were understandably disturbed with this state of affairs. However, we were later informed that the trial could not progress since the original records of the case had been transmitted to this Court. In the absence of the original records, the Chief Judicial Magistrate obviously could not proceed with the trial.

4. It is time to look into and revisit the rules, practices and procedures being followed not only by this Court but also by other superior courts requiring the routine summoning of the original records of a trial for no apparent reason except that the rules, practices and procedures provide for their requisitioning. This routine brings the trial to a grinding halt and delays the delivery of justice to an aggrieved litigant. It is time to decide on the customary summoning of the original records of a trial, particularly at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings. This appeal is an indicator that the disposal of some cases is delayed only because we follow some archaic rules, practices and procedures. If the original records had not been routinely summoned from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, we are confident that the trial could well have concluded many years ago, one way or another, and expeditious delivery of justice would not have been converted into a mirage.

5. We are mentioning this only so that our policy planners and decision makers wake up to some harsh realities concerning our criminal justice delivery system.

6. The principal question for consideration is whether cognizance of the criminal complaint taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the Appellant G.N. Verma deserves to be set aside in the absence of any allegation made against him in the complaint. A related question is whether the Appellant G.N. Verma could be described as a 'deemed Agent' of the owner of the Karkata Colliery in which an unfortunate fatal incident took place on or about 9th March 2000. In our opinion, the answer to the first question must be in the affirmative, while the related question must be answered in the negative.

The facts

7. On 15th December 1999 an order was issued by the Director of Mines Safety, Ranchi Region in Ranchi Under Section 22A(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 (for short the Act).1 The order related to the failure of the Agent, Karkata Colliery to rectify certain defects, despite time having been granted, in the Bishrampur and Bukbuka seams. Accordingly, by virtue of the order the Chief Inspector of Mines prohibited the employment of persons for extraction of coal from the extended Block B of the Bukbuka seam till the defects were rectified.

8. Notwithstanding the prohibitory order, extraction of coal was apparently carried out at the Karkata Colliery and on or about 9th March 2000 there was an unfortunate fatal accident. The cause and circumstances leading to the accident were investigated by an inspection of the mines on several dates in March and April 2000. The inquiry and inspection of the site of accident revealed that extraction of coal was being carried out in Block B of Bukbuka seam at Karkata Colliery in violation of the prohibitory order.

9. Consequent to the inquiry report suggesting a violation of the prohibitory order, the Inspector of Mines filed Case No. 323 of 2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi on 30th August 2000.