L.N.Chhangani, J. - (1.)This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City recommending that the proceedings in prosecution for an offence under Section 73 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the new Act) against the accused M/s. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Private) Limited and. others, being in violation of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution should be quashed.
(2.)The material facts are these: The Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Private) Limited owns Degotha Jharna soap-stone Mines at Dausa. It is situate in the territories comprised by the former Jaipur State. I am told there were no rules similar to "the Mines Creche Rules, 1946" in force in the former Jaipur State. Alter the integration of the Jaipur State in the United State of Rajasthan, the Indian Mines Act, 1923 with the various rules and regulations framed under it was extended to Rajasthan by P.art B States (Laws) Act No. 3 of 1951 which came into force on 1st April, 1951. Under the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, the owners of mines were required to construct creche in accordance with the plans prepared in conformity with rules and previously approved by the competent authority. The Mines Act, 1923 was repeated and its main provisions were repealed and re-enacted in the Mines Act, 1952 with some amendment. No new rules were framed under the new Act but under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act the rules and regulations framed under the old Act continued to be in force as deemed to have been enacted under the new Act. The accused omitted to construct the creche and ultimately the Regional Inspector of Mines, Ajmer, Ajmer Inspection Region, at the instance of the Chief Inspector of Mines in India filed a complaint against the accused for offence under Section 73 of the new Act for contravention of Rule 3 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The complaint was presented in the Court of the District Magistrate but was transferred to the Court of City Magistrate vide District Magistrate's order No. 9322 Judl. dated 24-10-58.
(3.)The accused after appearance questioned the validity of the prosecution mainly on two grounds: (i) The Mines Creche Rules, 1946, were framed under the Indian Mines Act, 1923 which had been repealed and replaced by the Indian Mines Act, 1952 under which admittedly no fresh rules and regulations have been framed. It was contended that the rules and regulations framed under the Act of 1923 though continued in force by Section 24 of the General Clauses Act are no longer a law in force within the meaning of Article 20 of the Constitution. The submission was that as these rules were deemed to have been enacted in the new Act, they could not be treated as the law factually in force within the requirements of Article 20 of the Constitution. (ii) That under Rule 3(b) the mine owners were given nine months time from the date of the publication of the rules to construct creches. The rules having been published in 1946 and the nine months period having expired long before the enforcement of the Rules in Rajasthan, the accused had no reasonable opportunity of complying with the provision of Rule 3(b) and, therefore, they should not be held liable to prosecution.
;