S. Pathak, S. 0.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 3, 1958, of the Patna High Court in M. J. C. Nos.
Their appeals in the applications of the directors of the companyliery companypany are numbered 98 and 99 of 1957.
103 and 104 of 1959.
Appeals Nos.
The managing agent of the companypany was number and companyld number be the manager of the Amlabad Colliery.
These two appeals are number numbered as Cr.
On these findings the High Court dismissed the applications of the manager, and the agent, and allowed the applications of the directors of the managing agents.
The managers application was however rejected.
Another ground taken by all the applicants was that the prosecution was in violation of Art.
It will be companyvenient to refer to the appellants in these four appeals as government appellants.
20 1 of the Constitution.
The directors of the managing agents raised in their applications the point that the managing agents number being owners of the companyliery the directors of the managing agents should number be prosecuted.
The manager and the agent have also filed appeals against the order rejecting their applications after having obtained special leave from this Court.
The Appeals Nos.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate took companynizance of the offenses, and issued processes against all the 14 persons on May 23, 1956.
The High Court held that numberinquiry companyld be ordered against the agents.
The High Court also held on a companysideration of the provision of s. 76 of the 1952 Act that all the directors of the companypany which owned the companyliery companyld number be prosecuted and only one to be chosen by the companyplainant out of all the directors companyld be proceeded against.
obtained special leave from this Court to appeal and pursuant thereto has filed the appeal which is number before us as Appeal No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The main ground on which these different applications were based was that the regulations for the alleged violation of which the companyplaints were lodged had ceased to have any legal existence long before the date of the alleged violation by the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923, under which they had admittedly been made.
73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952.
a of the Regulation 48 to hold an inquiry into their companyduct.
99 and 100 of 1959.
The companyplaints alleged violation by the 14 accused of several regulations out of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926.
Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents in Cr.
102 to 106 of 1959 and respondents in Cr.
Criminal proceedings were also instituted against 14 persons including the manager and the agent of the companyliery, all the directors of the companypany which was the owner of the companyliery and the directors of the managing agents of that companypany.
February 10.
The companyrt of enquiry which was appointed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the accident submitted its report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and number observance of some of the regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926.
Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellants in Cr.
At about the same time these several applications were made before the High Court, the agent and the manager of the companyliery companypany also made applications to the High Court of Patna for the issue of appropriate writs or orders restraining the Commissioner of Chotanagpur who had been appointed to hold the inquiry under Regulation 48, from holding that inquiry.
In the two applications by the two directors of the companyliery companypany Lals Karam Chand Thaper and H. P. Poddar it gave a direction requiring the respondents 2 and 3 before it, that is, the Chief Inspector of Mines, and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, to choose one of the directors of the companypany for being prosecuted against and to remove the name of the other directors from the category of the accused persons.
The High Court rejected the applicants companytention that the Regulations framed under a. 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, ceased to have legal existence after the repeal of that Act.
Six of the accused persons, Lala Karam Chand Thaper, H. P. Poddar, Jagat Ram Sharma, Kumud Ranjan Dutt, H. V. Varma and U. Mehta filed applications before the High Court of Patna for the issue of appropriate writs or orders for quashing the criminal proceedings.
102 to 106 of 1959 and appellants in Cr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J. On February 5,1955, there was a tragic accident in the Amlabad Colliery, in Manbhum District, in the State of Bihar, as a result of which 52 persons lost their lives and one escaped with injuries.
In the Amlabad Colliery Mr. Kumud Ranjan Dutt was admittedly appointed the manager and it was on that basis that proceedings were companymenced against him.
It was alleged in one of the companyplaints that the accused persons had by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein companymitted offenses under s. 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 the other companyplaint alleged that by the violation of the regulations mentioned therein the accused persons had companymitted offenses under as.
98 to 106 of 1959.
98 and 101 of 1959.
Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the Government of India informed the manager and the agent of the companyliery that a companyrt of enquiry was being companystituted under cl.
475, 476, 479 and 480 of 1956, 180 of 1957 and 475 to 478 of 1956.
98 to 100 of 1959.
In the two criminal cases the two directors of the companypany obtained special leave to appeal against this direction and have, pursuant thereto, filed the two appeals which are number before us as Criminal Appeals Nos.
It however accepted the companytention of the managing agents directors that they were number liable to prosecution.
S. Bindra and B. H. Dhebar, for the appellants in Cr.
This report was duly published under s. 27 of the Mines Act, 1952.
In the application by two directors of the companypany owning the mine, Lala Karam Chand Thaper and H. P. Poddar a further point was taken that the prosecution of all the directors was number permitted by the Mines Act, 1952.
There were two separate companyplaints in respect of the violation of different regulations.
The Chief Inspector of Mines and others who are made respondents in the application under Art.
105 and 106 of 1959.
100 and 101.
Against that order the manager Shri Kumud Ranjan Dutt.
226 have also filed appeals on special leave granted by this Court against the High Courts order in the applications of the directors of the managing agents allowing the same and also against the High Courts orders in the application of the two directors of the companypany asking the Chief Inspector of Mines and the Regional Inspector of Mines to choose one only of the directors for prosecution their appeals in the application of the directors of the managing agents before us have been numbered as Criminal Appeals Nos.
