The State Govt. Of India vs Ch.Narasimha Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 4961 Tel

            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

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)

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

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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.1409 of 2008

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs