Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Singh Meena vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 365 of 2018
1. Gopal Singh Meena
2. Apurba Kumar Roy
3. Ram Vinay Singh ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Kotana Appala Naidu ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
: Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
------
10/ 23.01.2024 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. for the State and
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned CGC appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
10.11.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 73
and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, in connection with G.C. No. 17 of
2017, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Giridih.
3. The Deputy Director of Mines Safety has filed the
complaint case alleging therein that on 27.05.2017, an accident
occurred at Kabribad re-organized mine. The intimation of accident
was received by Shri E. Jaykumar, the then Director of Mines Safety,
Koderma Region from Sri Ram Vinay Singh, General Manager/Agent
of Bermo & Kargali Area of Central Coalfields Limited, over
telephone on 27.05.2017 at about 4.30 pm and on receipt of the
information, a preliminary enquiry into the accident was made on
28.05.2017 by Sri E. Jaykumar, the then Director of Mines Safety,
Koderma Region on 17.06.2017, 25.07.2017 and 16.10.2017.
Detailed enquiry into the accident was made by Sri K. Appala Naidu,
Dy. Director of Mines Safety, Koderma Region.
During enquiry it was revealed that while five non-
employees were extracting coal from Open Cast Mines, suddenly
large amount of coal/debris fell on them causing severe injuries to
them. It has been alleged that on enquiry, it was found that the
dangerous place of excavation where non- employees met with the
vital accident was filled up or kept securely fenced, as required
under Regulation 112(5)(a) of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1957
read with Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952. It has been stated
that the aforesaid contravention constitutes an offence under
Section 73 of the Mines Act. It has further been stated that the
nature of contravention resulted into loss of life of five persons and
the accused persons are severally and vicariously liable for
punishment under Section 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance against the
petitioners mechanically under Section 73 and 72C(1)(a) of the
Mines Act, 1952. He submits that the petitioner No. 1 has been
made accused only because he is Manager of Kabribad re-organized
mine, where the petitioner No. 2 is the Ex-Agent of the Kabribad re-
organized mine and also the petitioner No. 3 is the present Agent of
Kabribad re-organized mine. He further submits that the said mine
was not being operated by the CCL and these petitioners at the
relevant time were posted as officers of the CCL. He further submits
that the villagers were illegally extracting the mines and in course
of that the debris fell on them, causing fatal injuries to the villagers.
He further submits that no vicarious liability can be fastened upon
the petitioners under Section 73 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act,
1952. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of the G.N.
Verma Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2014) 4
SCC 282, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras-17, 18, 20
and 25 held as follows:-
"17. It is true that "Agent" has an extended
meaning in the Act. It not only brings within
its fold a person who is appointed as an Agent
in relation to a mine but also brings within its
fold a person not appointed as an Agent but
who acts or purports to act on behalf of
the owner of the mine and takes part in the
management, control, supervision or direction
of the mine or any part thereof.
18. It is nobody's case that G.N. Verma was
appointed as an Agent of any mine. Also, the
complaint does not allege or state anywhere
that G.N. Verma acted or purported to act on
behalf of the owner of the mine or that he took
part in the management, control, supervision
or direction of any mine. In fact his duties and
responsibilities have not been described in the
complaint. In the absence of G.N. Verma's
duties having been spelt out in the complaint,
it is not possible to say whether he was merely
an administrative head of the Karkata Colliery
being its Chief General Manager or he was
required to be involved in technical issues
relating to the management, control,
supervision or direction of any mine in the
Karkata Colliery. The averment in the
complaint is bald and vague and is to the
effect that at the relevant time G.N. Verma was
the Chief General Manager/deemed Agent and
was exercising supervision, management and
control of the mine and in that capacity was
bound to see that all mining operations were
conducted in accordance with the Act, the
rules, regulations, orders made thereunder.
20. Insofar as the criminal complaint is
concerned, it does not contain any allegation
against G.N. Verma. The only statement
concerning him is that he was the Chief
General Manager/deemed Agent of the mine
and was exercising supervision, management
and control of the mine and in that capacity
was bound to see that all mining operations
were conducted in accordance with the Act,
the rules, regulations, orders made
thereunder. In the face of such a general
statement, which does not contain any
allegation, specific or otherwise, it is difficult
to hold that the Chief Judicial Magistrate
rightly took cognizance of the complaint and
issued summons to G.N. Verma. The law laid
down by this Court in Harmeet Singh Paintal
(though in another context) would be squarely
applicable. Under the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that on the facts of this case and
given the absence of any allegation in the
complaint filed against him no case for
proceeding against G.N. Verma has been made
out.
25. On the facts of this case, we would need to
unreasonably stretch the law to include G.N.
Verma as a person vicariously responsible for
the lapse that occurred in the mine resulting
in a fatal accident. We are of the view that
under these circumstances, there is no basis
for proceeding under Section 72-B of the Act
against G.N. Verma."
5. Relying on this judgment, he submits that so far as these
petitioners have unnecessarily the case has been registered.
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the
learned court has rightly taken the cognizance.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits
that the allegations are there in view of that rightly the case has
been filed.
8. The court finds that in para-5 of the complaint itself it
has been disclosed that while five non-employees were extracting
coal a opencast mine, suddenly large amount of coal / debris fell on
them, causing fatal injuries to all. Thus, it is an admitted position
that CCL was not operating the said mine and the private persons
were illegally extracting the mines. If such a situation is there, how
these petitioners, who happens to be the officers of the company
can be made accused under Section 73 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines
Act, 1952.
9. In the complaint case also there is no allegation against
these petitioners apart from the vague allegation that the
petitioners were the employees of the CCL and they are severely
and vicariously liable. However, the requirement is there to
demonstrate by the complainant as to how and in what manner
these petitioners were in-charge and were responsible to the said
mines, which is lacking in the case in hand and in view of that, the
judgment relied by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the case of G.N. Verma (Supra) is applicable in the
case in hand.
10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance
dated 10.11.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under
Sections 73 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, in connection with G.C.
No. 17 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, are hereby, quashed.
11. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
