SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Jhk) 285

High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD
A.K.SENGUPTA ALIA ALOK KUMAR SENGUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
CRI. MISC. 3545 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/05/2002

Advocates Appeared:
ANILKUMAR SINHA, K.CHOURASHIA, P.CHATTERJI

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304/34 - Mines Act, 1950 Section 72(c) - Case registered for offence under - Petition to quash FIR - Workers trapped in colliery mine due to heavy rush of water Dead bodies of some workers recovered - Due to excess cutting of coal, water sip page had increased and accused inspite of information failed to take safety arrangements and deliberately continued coal mining - Mining operations are always hazardous but it would not mean that any person had any intention to cause death of persons who lost lives in the course of operation - Necessary ingredients for offence under Section 299 IPC were wanting - For recklessness and negligence punishment was prescribed under Section 72(c) of the Act itself - No separate prosecution for lose of life could be there - FIR was liable to be quashed.

       Held: Police had assumed jurisdiction on the ground of loss of life and bodily injury to persons and a number of persons might have lost life but when the loss of life notwithstanding the number of lives is due to an accident occurring due to non-compliance of certain rules and regulations of the Act or the rules or the regulation made therein then all the offences, notwithstanding the loss of life will be covered by various sections of the Act and Rules and Regulations for which punishment has been prescribed under Section 72 of the Act. Mining operations are always hazardous and risky for life and serious bodily injuries to the employees and officers are always there and because of the nature of the work itself and the hazard ingrained therein if any loss of life occurs it does not mean that any person in fact had any intention to cause the death of the persons who lost their lives in course of operation in which they had been engaged in. Thus necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 299, IPC and punishable under Section 304. IPC will be wanting in such cases and similarly the recklessness and negligence will remain as the cause of the loss of lives but for recklessness and negligence there is punishment prescribed in the law 72-C itself. In this connection the reported decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. Nos. 4050/1997R and 4108/1997R has been referred to by the petitioner. In those cases, similar situation was there and the Court had quashed the proceedings after discussing all the aspects of the matter and agreeing with those arguments. I also find that when the law is enshrined under Section 72-C of the Mines Act itself talks not of life but prescribes a punishment under that very section then in that circumstances for loss of life no separate prosecution can be there. In view of this, I find merit in this application and consequently, the FIR in Jharia (Tisra) P.S. Case No. 49/2001 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed, so far the petitioner is concerned. This application is allowed. (Para 7)

       Result: Petition allowed.

       

Judgment :

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the FIR of Jharia (Tisra) P. S. Case No. 49/2001 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and all the proceedings therein, besides any order that the Court deems fit and proper.

( 2 ) ON 2-2-2001, the Officer-in-charge, Lodna Outpost, received an information that water-logging in Seam No. 7 of Bagdig Colliery started taking place and the officers and workmen were trapped inside the Mine. He registered a Sanha No. 28 dated 2-2-2001 and he along with the Sub-Inspector and policeman went to the Colliery. There he heard from the assembled angry persons that the Officers have put the lives of wrokmen in danger. There were fractional activities for the rescue work. He also came to know that in the Bagdigi Colliery No. 7 Seam had broken and water was entering in the Mine very fast and barring 30-35 persons rest of the persons came out of the Mine safely. After sometime, Salim Mian, Haugage Khalashi, Bhojram Bilaspuri, Md. Jalil, Fitter, came out of the Mine and they also stated the same story, and narrated about the water sippage. They had also informed the Manager, Assistant Colliery Manager that 30 more person were trapped inside the Mine due to heavy rush of water. On 5-2-2001, Drivers recovered the deadbody of Cable man Pritam Singh and the rescue operation was still continuing. The Officer-in-charge received further information that due to excess cutting of coal, water sippage has increased and that information was given to the Agent A. K. Sengupta, General Manager Sri Shrivastava, Area Safety Manager A. K. Gupta, Safety Officer of Bagdigi Colliery, Mining Sardar, Overman and other persons. In spite of that no safety arrangements were made and deliberately continued the coal mining. The officers of M/s. B. C. C. L. and officers of Director General Mines Safety were blamed for the death of the workmen. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the Officer-in-charge instituted the FIR against the General Manager, Safety Officer, Agent, Assistant Manager, Mining Sardar, Overman and Officer responsible for safety of Bagdigi Colliery under S. 304/34, IPC read with S. 72 (C) of the Mines Act, 1956 as also Regular 127/128 of the Mines Regulation 1961, Vide Annexure-1.

( 3 ) THOUGH in the FIR the aforesaid petitioner A. K. Sengupta has been described as the Agent of the said Colliery but in the petition A. K. Sengupta has not disclosed his identity as the Agent, rather he has stated in that coloumn that he resides at Agents Bunglow.

( 4 ) THE petitioners case is that though the Officer-in-charge has filed the case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. There was a big hierarchy from lower level up to the level of the Agent in the Bagdigi Colliery and the Open Cast Projects and the Agent of Bagdigi Colliery has a number of officials working under him. The Agent of Bagdigi Colliery had to maintain the liason with the Area and the Colliery and he had also to maintain industrial relations with the operating unions at unit level, arrange to procure materials for safety and production as is requisitioned by the Manager from time to time, to look into financial management, inventory control and he had also to deal with different technical matters with DCMS. It is the further case of the petitioner that the B. C. C. L. is the owner of the BagdigiColliery and the mining operations in the said colliery have been exclusively done as per the provisions of the Mines Act and the Coal Mines Regulations, 1967 and the Colliery Officials of the said Colliery had been performing their duties in accordance with law and said Colliery was under the charge of the Agent under whom a number of personnel of different disciplines including the Mining Personnels used to work. On the fateful day, the Colliery was under the charge of Manager, Asstt. Colliery Manager, including the Overman and Mining Sardars, Short Firer etc. for und








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top