Utpal Kumar Maji @ Utpal Kumar Majhi And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.M.A. Case No.79 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.03.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that a Security Guard of a private security agency engaged by an outsourcing agency was hit by a tipper on a road being used for transportation of coal by consumer truck, received serious bodily injuries to which he succumbed after one hour while being treated in a hospital. The enquiry further revealed that had corrective action been ensured by defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor, in accordance with the provisions of the Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulation 41(9) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, this accident could have been averted. It was further alleged that in contravention of provisions of Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, accused no.1, being the Agent of the Mine, failed to conduct the mine operations in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations, rules, by-laws and others made thereunder by ensuring corrective action the purpose defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor. It was also alleged that in contravention of provisions of Regulation 41(9) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 read with provisions of Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, accused no.2, being the Manager of the Mine, failed to conduct the out or the purpose of mine operations by performing such other duties as have been prescribed in that behalf under the Act, the regulations, or orders made thereunder, in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations, rules, by-laws and others made thereunder by ensuring corrective action defining the active mine control area, identifying hazard, assessing risk and defining control measures specifying sphere of responsibility for safe movement of men and machinery on road lying within the leasehold mine boundary used for transportation of coal by consumer truck containing high risk of road accident particularly during back shifts when visibility is poor. The above contraventions constitute offences, which is punishable under Sections 73 and 72A of the Mines Act, 1952 and the accused persons are severally and vicariously liable for the same.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Inspector of Mines without appreciating the fact and taking into consideration the reply filed by the Manager of Kujma Colliery, has instituted the present case only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He further submits that for the occurrence in question, Jharia (Lodna) O.P. P.S. Case No.442 of 2014, dated 21.09.2014, corresponding to G.R. No.4388 of 2014 was also registered against the driver of the vehicle in question. He also submits that in the said case, charge-sheet has been submitted. He submits that the Inspector of Mines has not made specific averment against the petitioners that which provision of Mines Act has been violated by the petitioners. He further submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned, there is not a single whisper in the complaint. He submits that in the complaint itself, the allegations are made that the security guard was hit by a tipper on a road being used for transportation of coal by consumer truck, received serious bodily injuries to which he succumbed after one hour. He further submits that there is no allegation that the said road was linked to the Mines. He submits that the duty and responsibility of the Management is described in Regulation 41 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 and Sub-regulation (9) of Regulation 41 speaks that the Manager shall perform such other duties as have been prescribed in that behalf under the Act, the regulations, or orders made thereunder. He submits that apart from that, there is nothing against the petitioner, who happened to be the officer of the BCCL and in view of that, the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that in light of Section 72(A) of the Mines Act, 1952, the offence under Section 57(m) is made out. He further submits that in view of that, the cognizance has also been taken. He also submits that even if a case is registered under IPC sections, that cannot be a ground of quashing the entire criminal proceeding.

The argument of Mr. Ravi Prakash is being accepted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint and finds that the allegations are only to the effect that the security guard was hit by a tipper on a road being used for transportation of coal by consumer truck and the deceased received serious bodily injury. There is no allegation that the said road was linked to the Mines and the truck was going to the Mines.

Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 speaks of duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers and that section is meant for operation in connection with the Mines and in view of that allegation, it is not clear whether the said road was linked to the Mines or not.

Section 72(A) of the said Act is the provision which specified that clauses (d), (i), (m), (n), (o), (p), (r), (s) and (u) of Section 57 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 57(m) of the said Act speaks as under:

“57(m) for providing for the safety of the roads and working places in mines, including the siting, maintenance and extraction or reduction of pillars or blocks of minerals and the maintenance of sufficient barriers between mine and mine.”

Section 57(m) speaks about roads and working places in the mines including the sitting, maintenance and extraction or reduction of pillars. There is no allegation in the complaint petition that the said road was linked or was the place in the mines. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the state are not being accepted by this Court as there is no allegation.

The Court has perused the order taking cognizance dated 17.03.2015 and finds that this order is not passed to the satisfaction of the learned Court as the word cognizance and the name of transferee Court are filled up in blank spaces, which suggest that there is non-application of judicial mind.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.M.A. Case No.79 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.03.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad are quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.