STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Pannalal and eight others of an offence under Section 73 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952 (No. XXXV of 1952)thereinafter called the Act) read with Rules 23 and 71 of the Indian Metalliferous mines Regulations, 1926 thereinafter called the Regulations) by a Magistrate of the first Class Rajsamand. '

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are these. The Inspector of Mines made a complaint to the District Magistrate of Udaipur against these nine accused praying that they be convicted under Section 73 of the Act for contravention of Section 19 of the Act and Rules 23 and 71 of the Regulations. The case was tried by a Magistrate of the first class. He convicted one of the accused Sadiqali under Section 73 of the Act for breach of" Section 19 of the Act, though in the operative part of the order, he does not mention there sections. Further, he seems to have acquitted the other eight accused of the offence under section 73 read with Section 19 of the Act, though he does not say so in so many words in the order. By a separate order of the same date, he acquitted all the nine accused of breach of Rules 23 and 71 of the Regulations on the ground that the regulations were no longer in force after the coming into force of the Act of 1952. He has mentioned Section 66 of the Act in one part of the order; but this is obviously a mistake for Section 73, for the Inspector of Mines had never prayed for the prosecution of the accused under Section 66.

(3.) THE main question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether the view of the learned Magistrate that the Regulations are no longer in force after the Act of 1952 came on the statute book is correct. He has of course given no reason why he holds this. He seems to think that, because the Public Prosecutor, who in these cases was probably a prosecuting Sub-Inspector, did not appear before him to show that the Regulations were in force, his duty was over and he need not himself consider as a Court whether, in fact, the Regulations were in force. He merely mentioned Section 88 of the Act of 1952 which has provided for repeal and thought that he had done his duty.