Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Santosh Prasad Srivastava Son of late Kedar Nath Lala - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 820 of 2015
Decided On : 14-08.2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
The absence of main responsible parties and insufficient evidence against the petitioner led to the reversal of his conviction under the Mines Act.
Headnote:(A) Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 72(A), 73, 72C(i)(a) - Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court - Petitioner, an Assistant Manager, was held guilty for safety violations leading to a fatal accident - Insufficient evidence against the petitioner as the main responsible parties were absconding - The court found the judgment of the lower courts to be illegal and perverse. (Paras 2, 6, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The authority of the complainant and inquiry officer was challenged - The court emphasized the need for proper authorization under the Mines Act for filing complaints and conducting inquiries. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for safety violations under the Mines Act after a fatal accident occurred involving an unauthorized individual on mine property. The petitioner argued that the main responsible parties were absent during the trial and that the evidence against him was insufficient. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the conviction of the petitioner, as the main co-accused were absconding and responsible for safety violations. The conviction was deemed illegal and perverse. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the complainant's authority and the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner. (Paras 8, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of the main responsible parties and the lack of sufficient evidence against the petitioner warranted the reversal of the conviction, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecutions under the Mines Act. (Paras 16)
Result: Revision allowed; petitioner acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by Shri M.P. Yadav Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2009 upholding the conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2009 in C.M.A. Case No.446 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections 72(A)/73/72C(i)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952.
3. The factual matrix of the case in a narrow campus is that on 10.03.1997, when an inspection was conducted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Inspector of Mines, under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, it was found that while an outsider was travelling on bicycle towards the haul road of the open cast workings at Golukdih area of M/s BCCL, subsidiary of Coal India Limited, he fall to the lower bench about 11 metre below of the O.C.P. and got severe bodily injuries which proved fatal.
4. It is alleged that at the time of said fatal accident present petitioner and two other staffs were on duty, hence, they were liable for contravention of the provisions of Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations No.98, 100(1) and 190 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 read with the condition No. 6.5 of Annexure II to the permission letter granted by the prosecuting DGMS Authority vide permission letter No.RII/G.O.C.P./P-100.126/98/79 dated 09.01.1997. It is further alleged that the accused persons failed to provide the parapet wall along the haul road at least 1.5 m in height where the accident occurred and also failed to provide check post, notice board at the entrance to the mine to prevent the unauthorized entry of the persons into the mine.
5. An inquiry/inspection was conducted by P.W.-3 Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Inspector of Mines) who observed that when an outsider was travelling on the haul road of the related open cast workings with a bicycle, he lost his balance and fell down to the lower bench about 11 m below of the O.C.P. and received serious bodily injury which proved fatal. As such accused persons are responsible for the contravention of the alleged provisions.
6. As such prosecution was initiated by lodging a complaint dated 06.09.1997 by the Director of Mines Safety Region No.II, Dhanbad. The accused persons were summoned and only petitioner who happens to be Assistant Manager Golukdih Open Cast Project (in short G.O.C.P.), Dhanbad appeared and faced trial. However, the agent H.N. Singh and the Manager R.S. Singh were absconded during trial and after conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three months and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 72A, R.I., one year and fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 72C(i)(a) and R.I. of one month and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 73 of the Mines Act with default stipulations under each section.
7. The petitioner challenged his conviction passed by learned Trial Court dated 07.12.2009 before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by preferring Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2009 which was also disposed of vide judgment dated 25.06.2015 by Additional Sessions Judge IV Dhanbad and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant was upheld which has been assailed in this revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders has relied upon following points:
(i) In order to substantiate the accusations against the petitioner only 3 witnesses out of 9 named witnesses were examined in this case. The complainant Ravindra Sharma (P.W.-2) was not a competent person to file the complaint against the accused. In absence of any official gazette notification authorizing him as an Inspector of Mines as provided under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952. Similarly, the complainant was not authorized by D.G.M.S. with written approval as per provision under Section 75 of the Min
