Jharkhand High Court
Sanjiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2016
1. Sanjiv Kumar Singh
2. Arun Kumar ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad. ..... ... Opposite Parties
with
Cr.M.P. No. 2138 of 2016
Aliullah Khan @ Amiullah Khan ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad. ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate
: Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Spl.P.P.
------
03/ 02.12.2021 Heard Mr. Krishna Shankar and Mr. Asit Baran Mahata,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar and
Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.Ps. for the State in their respective cases.
2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the cognizance order
dated 30.09.2013, in connection with Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No.
308 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 1362 of 2006, pending in the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. The FIR was instituted on the basis of the written report of the
S.D.O., Dhanbad submitted before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhansar Police
Station, alleging inter alia that on 21.04.2006 in the Bera Colliery
(Shatabdi Khadan) 20-21 inclined at 16th Level west in 10th Deep, one
accident has occurred in which one Meghu Mandal has died and the
enquiry has been conducted by the Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad and
the Enquiry officer has found that looking into the roof condition,
supporting work near the face was to be done and the Overman was also
to be present in the shift.
Looking into the enquiry report, it is alleged that there is
laches on the part of the management with regard to safety and
hence, requested to take appropriate legal action in the light of the
report and also inform about the action taken to the informant.
On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant,
Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 308 of 2006 has been registered
under Sections 288, 337, 338, 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2016 submits that the petitioner No. 1 is
the Manager and petitioner No. 2 is the Assistant Manager of the Bera
Colliery of BCCL. Similarly Mr. Asit Baran Mahto, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2138 of 2016 submits that the
petitioner is the Mining Sardar at Bera Colliery of BCCL. They elaborate
their arguments by way of submitting that the cognizance against the
petitioners have been taken under Sections 288, 337, 338, 304-A/34 of the
Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate, wherein the allegations with
regard to latches in the mines has been made, for that Section 72(c) of the
Mines Act, 1952 is the specific provision for such latches. They further
submit that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.R. Mukhopadhyay @
Pramod Ranjan Mukhopadhyay & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand,
reported in (2014) 3 East Cr. C. 84 (Jhr), and the Hon'ble Court came to
the conclusion that if the specific Act is there, penal provisions under the
Indian Penal Code will not attract. Reference may be made in paras-12,
13, 14 and 16 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow:-
"12. In the context of the stand taken on behalf of
the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision
as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure which deals with the matter regarding
investigation and enquiry of the case falling under
the Indian Penal Code or any Special Act which
reads as under:
" Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code
and other law:-
1. All offences under the Indian Penal Code (46
of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into,
tried and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions hereinafter contained.
2. All offences under any other law shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise
dealt with according to the same provisions, but
subject to any enactment for the time being in
force regulating the manner or place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise
dealing with such offences."
13. Thus, sub-Section (1)of Section 4 of the Code
provides that in absence of any specific provision to
the contrary nothing in the code shall affect any
special or local law for the time being in force.
However, the conjoint effect of that provision and
sub-Section (2) of Section 4 would be as follows:
" 1. That all offences, whether under the penal
code or under any other law, have to be
investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise
dealt with according to the provisions of the
Code.
2.This rule is subject to qualification that in
respect of offences under other laws that is to
say, under laws other than Indian Penal Code, if
there be an enactment regulating the manner of
investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise
dealing with such offences, such enactment will
prevail over the code.
3.The provisions of special or local law will
prevail over the provisions contained in the
Code unless there is specific provisions to the
contrary."
14. Having taken notice of the provision of Section 4
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one is required
to take notice of Section 72-C of the Mines Act which
reads as follows:
72-C. Special provision for contravention of law
with dangerous results - (1) whoever
contravenes any provision of this Act or of any
regulation, rule or bye-law or of any order made
thereunder (other than an order made under
sub-section(1-A) or sub-section (2) or sub-
section(3) of Section 22 [ or under sub-section
(2) of Section 22-A], shall be punishable -
(a) if such contravention results in loss of life,
with imprisonment which may extend to two
years, or with fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees, or with both; or
(b) if such contravention results in serious
bodily injury, with imprisonment which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to three thousand rupees, or with both; or
(c ) if such contravention otherwise causes
injury or danger to persons employed in the
mine or other persons in or about the mine, with
imprisonment which may extend to three months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both;
Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate, reasons to the contrary to be recorded in
writing in the judgment of the Court, such fine, in
the case of a contravention referred to in clause (a),
shall not be less than three thousand rupees.
2. Where a person having been convicted under
this section is again convicted thereunder, he
shall be punishable with double the punishment
provided by sub-Section (1).
3. Any Court imposing or confirming in appeal,
revision or otherwise a sentence of fine passed
under this section may, when passing judgment,
order the whole or any part of the fine recovered
to be paid as compensation to the persons
injured or, in the case of his death, to this legal
representative:
Provided that if the fine is imposed in a case which
is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made
before the period allowed for presenting the appeal
has elapsed, or, if an appeal has been presented,
before the decision of the appeal.
15. Further Section 75 relating to prosecution of
owner, agent or manager reads as follows: 75.
Prosecution of owner, agent or manager - No
prosecution shall be instituted against any owner,
agent or manager for any offence under this Act
except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or of the
District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorized in
this behalf by general or special order in writing by
the Chief Inspector:
[Provided that the Chief Inspector or the
District Magistrate or the Inspector as to
authorized shall, before instituting such
prosecution, satisfy himself that the owner, agent
or manager had failed to exercise all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence].
[Provided further that] in respect of an offence
committed in the course of the technical
direction and management of a mine, the
District Magistrate shall not institute any
prosecution against an owner, agent or manager
without the previous approval of the Chief
Inspector.
16. On perusal of the aforesaid two provisions it
does appear that on account of contravention of any
rule, regulation or bye-law or any other order made
under the Act, if accident takes place which results
into loss of life or bodily injury that would be subject
matter of prosecution under the Mines Act and
therefore, Mines Act being a special legislation
provision of it would prevail over the provision of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words,
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to trial falling
within the special legislation is not permissible to be
gone into under the General Law as has been
noticed earlier, keeping in view the provision as
contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing in Cr.M.P. No.
669 of 2016 and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing in Cr.M.P.
No. 2138 of 2016 jointly submit that there is no illegality in the
cognizance order and is good in law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the judgment of
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.R. Mukhopadhyay @
Pramod Ranjan Mukhopadhyay & Ors. (Supra), none of the Penal
Sections of Indian Penal Code are attracted against the petitioners.
7. As such, the entire criminal proceedings including the
cognizance order dated 30.09.2013, in connection with Dhanbad
(Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 308 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 1362 of
2006, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.
8. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
