Jharkhand High Court
State (Govt. Of India) Represented By ... vs Ram Kishore Prasad on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. (DB) No.885 of 2015
------
State (Govt. of India) represented by Inspector of Mines now
designated as Director of Mines, Safety, Dhanbad namely Raj
Narayan Singh son of Shri Vakil Prasad Singh having its office
situated at P.O. and P.S.- Dhanbad, District Dhanbad and resident of
Saraidhela P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
.... .... Complainant/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishore Prasad, son of Late Bhagwan Prasad, resident of Qtr.
No.C/29 Kusum Vihar, P.O. : B.C.C.L. Township, P.S. : Saraidhela,
District : Dhanbad
.... .... Accused/Appellant/Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Mohua Palit, Advocate
------
09/Dated: 19.06.2025
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 157 days in
preferring the instant petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the
interlocutory application, the delay of 157 days in preferring this
petition, is hereby, condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No.292 of 2017 stands allowed.
5. Reference may be made to the order dated 12.06.2025, in
terms thereof, office has given specific note regarding maintainability
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
of this petition in the present form.
6. We, after going through the said office note, are of the view
that there is no requirement to seek leave as required for filing of an
appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. in view of the amendment
having been incorporated under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon this, has submitted
that she may be given liberty to convert this petition filed under
Section 378(4) to that of Section 372 Cr.P.C., considering the appeal
to be in the nature of acquittal appeal.
8. Such leave is being granted.
9. Office is to make necessary correction in the cause title.
10. Since the matter is of the year, 2015 and the appeal has been
preferred against the order of acquittal vide the judgment dated
11.09.2014 and the incident is of the year, 2000, therefore, this Court
is of the view that this petition is to be heard today on merit.
11. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has started her
argument on merit.
12. Heard Mr. Nitu Sinha, learned CGC for the petitioner.
13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State
(Govt. of India) that the learned court has passed the order/judgment
of acquittal on the ground of non-availability of the requisite sanction
but the learned appellate court has not taken into consideration that
the complainant is authorized by the Chief Inspector of Mines to
institute prosecution on his behalf vide Notification No.
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
law/G22/85/883 dated 30.09.90 published in the Gazette of India
Part III Section 1 dated 3.3.90 a true copy of which was enclosed,
and therefore, learned Session Judge erred in observing that there is
no sanction for prosecution.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted
that the learned court has not appreciated aforesaid aspect and as
such, the impugned judgment needs interference.
15. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner needs to refer herein the prosecution story as
referred in the complaint case, which reads as under: -
16. A complain case filed by State (Govt. of India) through Mines
Inspector now Deputy Director of Mines Safety (Mech.) Central Zone
Dhanbad against the accused person for an accident which took
place on 12.03.2000 at Sudamdih Shaft Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L.
17. The complainant received information of the accident at
Sudamdih Mines on 12.03.2000 at 10:15 hours and inspected the
site along with other officials and Deputy Director of Mines Safety
(Mech.), Central Zone, Dhanbad who has made an inquiry of the
said Mine on 12.03.2000, 13.03.2000, 14.03.2000 and 20.04.2000 to
find out the cause and the circumstances which laid to the said
accident.
18. While three workers were descending in a shaft in Sudamdih
Colliery, then the high treasure delivery pipe line burst releasing a
strong Water Jet. The Jet hit one of the workers in cage and threw
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
him out of it along with one half of the cage gate. Thereafter, he fell
by nearly seventeen meters on protective roofing, on which, he
succumbed to injury and thereafter, had died. The accused persons
were responsible for security and safety measures and due to their
negligence, they had failed to initiate timely action of repairing
deteriorating pipe lines in contravention of regulation 190 of the Coal
Mines Regulation 1957 and are liable punishment under Section 73
and 72(C)(1)(a) of the Mines Act.
19. The complaint case was registered as CMA Case No.515 of
2000 for the offences punishable under Section 73 and 72(C)(1)(a)
of the Mines Act. Subsequently, the said complaint case was
transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad for trial and
disposal. The accusation under Section 73 and 72(C)(1)(a) of the
Mines Act were read over and explained to the accused persons to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore,
trial was conducted.
20. The competent authority of criminal jurisdiction on receipt of
complaint has taken cognizance and thereafter summons have been
issued to the Opp. Party. The charge has been framed, on
appearance of the Opp. Party as also the witnesses have been
examined on behalf of the prosecution. The witnesses have also
been cross-examined. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded.
21. The learned court, on consideration of the testimony as also
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
the documents marked as exhibits and also considering the
testimony of witnesses, i.e., five in numbers, has found in entirety
that the sanction has not been accorded by the competent authority.
The statutory requirement since has not been fulfilled which led the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in passing the order in appeal by
allowing it, which is under challenge.
22. The ground has been taken that learned appellate court has
not taken into consideration that the complainant is authorized by the
Chief Inspector of Mines to institute prosecution on his behalf vide
Notification No. law/G22/85/883 dated 30.09.90 published in the
Gazette of India Part III Section 1 dated 3.3.90 a true copy of which
was enclosed, and therefore, learned Session Judge erred in
observing that there is no sanction for prosecution.
23. Herein, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that notification no. law/G22/85/883 dated 30.09.1990
published in the Gazette of India Part III Section 1 dated 3.3.1990
was appended with the complaint and as such, that document ought
to have been taken into consideration.
24. This Court has gone through the details of exhibits which was
produced before the Court for bringing it on record by marking exhibit.
25. We have found from the discussion so made regarding the
details of the documents which were produced before the concerned
court, i.e.,
Ext. 1, signature of P.W.2 on complaint petition dated 30.08.2000;
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
Ext. 2, accident report dated 25.05.2000;
Ext. 3, signature of Sri A.K. Mishra, Agent on form IV (A) dated
15.03.2000
Ext. 4, signature of General Manager E.J. Area on the letter no.
GMEJESF-DGMS-2000-8740 dated 27.06.2000;
Ext. 4/1, signature of R.K. Prasad, General Manager (E&M) on the
letter dated 30.06.2000;
Ext. 4/2, Signature of A.K. Mishra, Agent on the letter dated
26.06.2000;
Ext. 4/3, signature of accused Niladri Rai on the explanation dated
26.06.2000;
Ext. 4/4, signature of accused A.K. Biswas on the explanation dated
26.06.2000;
Ext. 5, statement of accused Niladri Rai dated 20.04.2000;
Ext. 6, statement of accused A.K. Mishra dated 20.04.2000;
Ext. 8, statement of accused K.K. Mishra dated 20.04.2000,
statement of accused A.K. Biswas dated 14.03.2000;
Ext. 9, statement of R.K. Singh dated 14.03.2000;
Ext. 10, statement of D.N. Goswami;
Ext. 11, statement of Basudeo Mishra;
Ext. 12, signature of K. Maheshwari on the statement of worker
Raghunath Mandal;
Ext. 13, signature of inquiry officer on the statement of worker Angu
Singh;
Ext. 14, Statement of Abdul Kari, Signaman dated 14.03.2000;
Ext. 15, Statement of Dudhnath Singh (P.W.4) dated 13.03.2000;
Ext. 16, Statement of Chintaman Mahato Assitant Foreman dated
13.03.2000;
Ext. 17, Signature of Surveyor, Colliery Engineer (A.K. Biswas),
Manager (Niladari Rai) Agent A.K. Mishra on accident plan of Durga
Deshwali;
Ext. 18, Signatur of Arbind Kumar, Director of Mines on the letter of
Labour Ministry, Govt. of India dated 31.08.2000; and
Ext. 19, complaint petition dated 30.08.2000.
26. Thus, it is evident that the document as has been sought to be
relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is foreign to the record before
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
the learned appellate court, as notification no. law /G22/85/883 dated
30.09.1990, has not been marked.
27. Although, it has been contended that the said notification was
part of the complaint, even accepting the same that the said
notification was part of the complaint that cannot be treated to be
part of the record unless the said document will be proved by the
person concerned for the purpose of its consideration by the learned
court.
28. It is settled that in the criminal trial merely by filing the
document, the same is not to be appreciated by the learned court
and if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner will be
accepted, then the principle of fairness and transparency of the
criminal trial will be jeopardized.
29. However, the learned trial court has not appreciated the
principle of fairness and transparency and even in absence of
notification no. law/G22/85/883 dated 30.09.1990, has accepted the
version of the prosecution and convicted the Opp. Party discarding
the requirement which was to be meted out as provided under
Section 75.
30. The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by the
appellate court by following the principle of fairness and
transparency in absence of the document.
31. It also needs to refer herein that the foreign ground cannot be
allowed to be agitated by the petitioner as has been tried to be done
2025:JHHC:16063-DB
by impressing upon the court that the notification no. law/G22/85/883
dated 30.09.1990 was part of the complaint but the same not been
taken into consideration.
32. This Court, in absence of the said document having been
available on record, is not fit to be taken into consideration at this
stage which was never been placed before the learned court for its
appreciation.
33. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in absence of the
document, the learned appellate court has taken correct view in
interfering with the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
34. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid legal and
factual aspect and coming to the judgment passed by the appellate
court, is of the view that no error has been said to be committed by
the appellate court, hence, the present petition is fit to be dismissed.
35. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-
