S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are accused in C. C. No. 219 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court. Mummidivaram, East Godavari District invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in the said C. C. 219 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE facts that led to filing of the complaint and later this petition can be briefly stated as follows : The petitioners are working as Chief Engineer/mines Manager; Chief Engineer/asst. Mines Manager and General Manager/agent in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (O. N. G. C. ). They have undertaken also drilling operations near GS-15-AB (Offshore) Location operating within 12 nautical miles from the site village. The drilling operations were entrusted to their Contractor. As per the contract the entire drilling operation will be conducted by the Contractor and thereafter production tests have to be conducted. It appears that on 23-11-1992 when the Contractor himself was conducting production tests at GS-15-AB, oil gas leakage was observed in the flow line and while four persons were working on the burner boom held by four steel ropes in an offshore drilling, one of the ropes snapped due to shearing of bolts at the eye pad, leading to collapse of the boom. All the four persons fell into the sea and one of them died due to shock, after 45 minutes. Thereafter the accident was reported on 20-11-1995. Sri Megharaj Deputy Director of Mines, Safety, Hyderabad Region No. 1 also an Inspector of Mines under Sec. 5 (1) of the Mines Act, 1952 made an inspection of the aforesaid mines on 1-12-1995. , 18-1-1996, 2-2-96 and 16-2-1996 to enquire into the circumstances which led to the said accident. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the accident and statements of witnesses were recorded at Rajahmundry and Hyderabad. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Mines Safety submitted a report. Subsequently he filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mummidivaram and the same was registered as C. C. 219 of 1996 for the offence under Sec. 72 (c) (1) (a) of the Mines Act and the learned Magistrate ordered issue of summons. Aggrieved by the same the present criminal petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the boom was not inspected by the Inspector as it was under transportation to Visakhapatnam and further there was no application of mind by the authority concerned for launching of prosecution against the petitioners-accused before filing of the complaint. It is also contended that the prosecution cannot be laid without producing specific order mentioning the fact of exercising due diligence to prosecute the said offence as required under Sec. 75 of the Mines Act and the complaint itself is not maintainable for want of an order under Sec. 75 of the Act.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government contends that the Deputy Inspector of Safety was authorised by the Chief Inspector to present a complaint and therefore the complaint is not bad and it is maintainable. It is also contended that no special order in writing need be passed by the Chief Inspector. The Chief Inspector authorised the Deputy Inspector of Safety under Sec. 75 of the Act before launching a complaint.

( 5 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions Section 75 of the Mines Act of 1952 reads as follows :"75. Prosecution of owner, agent or manager: No prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector. (Providing that the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or the Inspector as so authorised shall, before instituting such prosecution, satisfy himself that the owner, agent or manager had failed to exercise all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document