JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinnha learned counsel and Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Niki Sinha and Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. These petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these matters have been heard.

3. In both the petitions common facts and law are involved that is why both the petitions have been heard together.

4. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.M.A. Case No. 614 of 2000 whereby petitions for dropping the proceeding against the petitioners have been rejected.

5. Complaint petition was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by the Director of Mines Safety, Region No. 1, Dhanbad based on the enquiry report stating therein that 64 persons were engaged in belowground workings, unprecedented heavy rains took place within a short span of time causing rapid rise in the water level of an adjoining river on its surface which exceeded the prefixed withdrawal level requiring withdrawal of persons from belowground working but the same went unnoticed. Attempts to raise the persons were started much later and met with little success as the boilers serving the steam winders of the outlets which had not been attended to, failed to develop steam at adequate pressure. Consequently, the rains which continued unabated caused further rise in the water level of the river, which exceeded the recorded highest flood level and water ultimately breached an embankment built as a protective measure against it almost two hours water. The flood water entered into an adjoining quarry, then breached a retaining wall built against it, and flooded an adjoining quarry with connected belowground workings. Water soon filled up the entire belowground workings trapping all the 64 working persons who could not be brought to the surface. Later on five dead bodies of the minors were recovered. On these premises, complaint has been filed by the Director of Mines Safety, Region No. 1, Dhanbad.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 861 of 2013 draws the attention of the Court to the complaint petition contained as Annexure-1 and submits that the petitioners have been shown as accused nos. 3 and 2 respectively in the complaint petition wherein they have been described as deemed agent, Gaslitand Colliery. He further draws the attention of the Court to the particulars of the accused persons described in the complaint petition and by giving much emphasis submits that in the particulars, they have been shown as deemed agent under section 2(c) of the Mines, Act, 1952 (here-in-after referred to Act). He submits that there is no mention of deemed agent under Section 2(c) of the Mines Act. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered with judgment in the case of “G.N. Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand” reported in (2014) 4 SCC 282. He submits that the case of “ G.N. Verma” (supra) was allowed in the same facts of the present case. This was recorded in para 6 of the said judgment. In the case of “G.N. Verma” (supra), the Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court interpreted Section 18(5) of Act and came to the conclusion that in view of the extended definition of agent read with section 18(5) of the Act, the Chief General Manager of a Mine would be a deemed agent responsible for the management, control, supervision or direction of a mine or a part thereof. He submits that after judgment of the Division Bench, the said G.N. Verma approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on