sHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1409 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The State (Government of India), aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, who is an Agent-cum-Manager in the Centenary Opencast Mine, Singareni Colleries Company Limited for the contravention of Regulation 36(1) and 113(1) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 punishable under Sections 73 and 72C (1)(a) of Mines Act, 1952, filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 02.06.2006, he received information about a fatal accident in the mines due to which, one helper by name Mora Janardhan died. P.W.1 inspected the place of accident and conducted enquiry on the next day. The enquiry revealed that the deceased, while walking into the working area, there was a ditch about a meter deep in front of shovel scrapping loose floor in the area for leveling purpose, a boulder measuring 3meters long x 2.5 meters wide x 2.3 thick resting on the slope of the ditch suddenly rolled down and partially buried him, inflicting serious bodily injuries. The deceased died in the next half an 2 hour of the accident. The respondent/accused being the Agent-cum-Manager of the mines, failed to appoint a qualified official for supervision of the mining activities and in the process, failed to prevent the deceased from approaching dangerously close to the working machinery.
3. P.W.1 was examined by the prosecution and also the other witnesses PWs.2 and 3, who were present at the incident. The learned Magistrate found that (i) the respondent was Agent-cum-Manager of Centenary Opencast Mine and he was not having any power to appoint any supervisor and other officers to work in the mine. When the said fact was admitted by P.W.1, the question of violating Regulation 36(1) and 113(1) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 does not arise. (ii) P.W.1 also did not issue any show-cause notice for shortage of supervisors. (iii) P.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that one Bikshapathi (over man) inspected the mine and he had an experience of 11 years, for which reason, it cannot be said that no supervision was done nor a competent person was not in place to attract contravention of Regulation 36(1) 3 and 113(1) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. (iv) P.W.2, who worked as Trip Counter in Singareni company, deposed that one Bikshapathi had inspected the spot soon before the incident. However, the accident occurred and also stated that the deceased died due to his negligence and not on account of any mismanagement. (v) P.W.3 was working as Head over man in the Mines. He also stated that precautions were taken and though no person will be allowed in the shovel area, however, the deceased had gone into the swing area resulting in the accident.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate has to be reversed for the reason of the Management not taking steps to take appropriate precautions, which are in violation of the Regulation 36(1) and 113(1) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957.
5. As seen from the record, even according to P.W.1, who was the enquiry officer, the respondent/accused had nothing to do with the appointment of agent or managers, during working shifts for taking appropriate precautions in the 4 interest of the workers. When the mining work is going on, a sirdar or other competent person should be placed as in charge.. P.Ws.2 and 3 stated that in fact there was a person who had visited the premises as sirdar. When such examination of the place was done by a competent person, the subsequent act of the deceased entering into the area which is prohibited, it cannot be said that the accused is liable for the violation of the Regulations.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 5 implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondent. There are no grounds to reverse the judgment of acquittal.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.A.No.1409 of 2008 Dated: 28.09.2022 kvs 7