Gopal Singh Meena Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 365 of 2018

¶3

Gopal Singh Meena

¶4

Apurba Kumar Roy 3. Ram Vinay Singh ..... … Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Kotana Appala Naidu ..... … Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

-----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 ------

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

During enquiry it was revealed that while five nonemployees 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

¶13

-2-

¶14

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.

¶15

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 reorganized 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:-

¶16

“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.

¶17

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

¶18

-3-

¶19

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.

¶20

-4-

¶21

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.”

¶22

Relying on this judgment, he submits that so far as these petitioners have unnecessarily the case has been registered.

¶23

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

-5-

¶29

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.

¶30

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Amitesh/-

Gopal Singh Meena v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh Meena v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Nur Alam Alias Md Noor Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rabindra Nath Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shri Phani Bhushan Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kundan Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.