Back
1980 Supreme(Cal) 53
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Siba Prasad Rojkhowa, J.
Golakpati Mahato
Vs.
State of West Bengal
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1875 of 1984
Decided On : February 23, 1980
Advocate Appeared:
Biswanath Sanyal for petitioner
Samir Chatterjee for opposite party.
A Receiver appointed by a Court is entitled to protection under ss. 78 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code and that prosecution should apply to the Court appointing such Receiver for sanctions to prosecute him.
Headnote:
COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1973 - S. 3 - COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 - S. 30(2) - INDIAN PENAL CODE - S. 78, 79 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - S. 197(1) - Validity of prosecution against Receiver appointed by Court for extracting coal after Supreme Court order banning such extraction - Protection available to Receiver under ss. 78 and 79 of IPC - Necessity for obtaining sanction from Court appointing Receiver before prosecuting him.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Receiver appointed by the High Court, was extracting coal from a colliery in violation of an order passed by the Supreme Court banning such extraction. A Sub-Inspector of Police filed a first information report against the accused under s. 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and s. 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976. The accused filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the accused was entitled to protection under ss. 78 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code and that prosecution should apply to the Court appointing such Receiver for sanctions to prosecute him.
Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to protection under ss. 78 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the accused was entitled to protection under ss. 78 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code because he was acting in pursuance of an order of a Court of Justice and he had a good faith belief that the Court had jurisdiction to pass such order. The High Court also held that the prosecution should apply to the Court appointing such Receiver for sanctions to prosecute him.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the criminal proceeding pending against the accused.
By this Revision Petition, the accused/petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding in case no. GR 617 of 1980 under s. 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and under s. 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act. 1976.
2. Sri Sunil Kumar Chatterjee, an alert Sub-Inspector of Police who was the Officer-in-Charge of Jamuria Police Station, District Burdwan during April 1980 filed a first information report dated 17.4.80 to the effect that the accused/petitioner was appointed Receiver of Acharya Desher Mohan Colliery, Police Station Jamuria, by order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in connection with Special Suit no. 89 of 1978. Accordingly the said Receiver was extracting coal from the said colliery and used to sell it to different persons. On 11.4.80, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India passed an order on the issue of Coal Mines and while upholding the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976, declared infer alia that according to the scheme of the Act, the coal industry had been nationalised as a whole and a total ban had been imposed upon operation of coal mines by any person other than the Central Government, State Government, Company or Corporation owned and controlled by General Government and a Company engaged in the production of iron and steel in any form in the country and no Receiver appointed by any Court in the country could operate any coal mines in any form. But violating the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sri G. P. Mahata (Receiver) extracted coal from the aforesaid colliery and stored the same in the premises of the said colliery and he continued the illegal practices even after 11.4.80.
3. Accordingly, the informant Sri Chatterjee, visited .the aforesaid colliery on 16.4.80 and found heaps of coal lying in the premises of the said colliery. He found none from the Receiver's side present in the colliery. So he contacted Sri Sunil Kumar Das, acting Manager of the neighbouring Tara Colliery and Sri Janardan Mukherjee, Surveyor of that colliery and requested them to take proper account of the coal. The Surveyor took measurements of the extracted coals heaped at the premises and estimated roughly at 1735 (one hundred seventy three point five) metric tonnes of slack and steam coal.
The Sub-Inspector then seized the above coal in presence of the witnesses. According to him Sri Golok Pati Mahata (the Receiver) committed offences by extracting coal without authority from the aforesaid colliery and Sri Mahata was liable under s. 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 and under s. 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 and he started the case suo motu and directed Sri K. P. Satpati, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case and the said Police Officer, after investigation, submitted charge sheet on 20.4.81.
4. The case was registered in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Asansol and was numbered as G. R. 617/80. On 18.8.83, the accused Golok Pati surrendered before learned court and was enlarged on bail.
5. On 25.5.84, a charge was framed against accused under s. 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nalionalisation) Act, 1973 and the next date was fixed fur evidence. In the mean time, the accused has come up before this Court in revision praying for quashing the proceeding.
6. It may be mentioned here that the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 received the assent of the President on 30.5.73 and the Coal Mines (Nationalsation) Amendment Act, 1976 received the assent of the President on 27.576. Certain Writ Petitions were moved before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Amendment Act (67 of 1976). A Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Chandrachud dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of the Amendment Act. That was reported in AIR 1980 SC 1682 (Tara Prasad Singh etc. v Union of India & ors.) Thereafter some other petitioners move
