JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel of Central Government and also Mr. Jitendra Pandey, on behalf of the state are present.

2. Heard the parties.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05. 2007, whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 72A, 72C (i) (a) and Section 72C (i) (b) of the Mines Act, 1952 against the petitioner and also against the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.M.A. Case No. 129 of 2007, by which the prayer of the complainant to withdraw the case has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that the O.P. No.2, the Deputy Director Mines (Safety), Region No.1, Dhanbad had filed a written complaint before the court of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad alleging that they had received the information about an accident held on 20.11.2006 at Sendra Bansjora Colliery resulting in the death of one Amit Kumar Singh, driver, working as watchman and serious accident of Sri Dhiren Mahto, General Mazdoor/Dumping Munshi. It has further been alleged that on enquiry and inspection, it was revealed that while a Dumper was being reversed to unload over-burden in a dump area, in the night hours, two persons, one working as Dumping Munshi and other a driver working as watchman were ran over by the Dumper, resulting in serious injury and an offence punishable under section 72A, 72C (i) (a) and Section 72C (i) (b) of the Mines Act, 1952 were found to have been committed by the petitioner and accordingly the case was instituted, under which the impugned orders had been passed, which are under challenge.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 Mr. Sunil Kumar submitted that the counter affidavit has been filed in this case and further submitted that this petitioner, being the Director of the Company is not liable for the offence, under which the cognizance has been taken and relying upon order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P No. 1415 of 2007, in which the application filed by a similarly situated co-accused persons Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, who was General Manager of the company, has been allowed and the cognizance of the offence taken against him has been quashed by order dated 20.03.2012. Further it has been stated that the said order dated 20.03.2012 passed by this court in Cr.M.P. No. 1415 of 2007 with respect to the co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh has been passed relying upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2008)5 S.C.C. 662 and then the order has been passed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case.

7. In the present case, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was the Director (Technical Operation) of the Company and he has also no role in the commission of the offence and neither he is Agent, nor the Owner nor the Manager of the colliery and he was also not directly responsible for the contravention of any regulation and he can be made accused by invoking the principal of vicarious liability. There are specific provisions under sections 18(4) of the Mines Act, under which, it has categorized the person, who can be held vicarious liable for the offence committed under sections 72A, 72C of the Mines Act. Further Section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 also lays down duties and responsibilities of Owners, Agents and Managers. The provision of Section 18(1) & 18 (4) reads as follows:

“18. Duties and Responsibilities of Owners, Agents and Mangers- (1) The Owner and Agent of every Mines shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for ta