BANWARILAL AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-1961-2-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
February 10,1961
BANWARILAL AGARWALLA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MONTREAL STREET RY. CO. V. NORMANDI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA VS. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVAITAVA:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MANGILAL S JAIN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KAR)-2004-1-26] [REFERRED TO]DAHYALAL BAPALAL RAVAL VS. PATAN MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(GJH)-1966-9-4] [REFERRED 12.]
MANISH GANGULY VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAM DEVI VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1963-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWDHURY AND GULZAR SINGH VS. FRICK INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1978-8-33] [REFERRED]
M V SUBRAMANYAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2001-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUVINA B REDKAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-1991-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIR AHMAD VS. GANGA PRASAD A S D M BALLIA [LAWS(ALL)-1962-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
KIDWAI HUSAIN KAMIL VS. YADAV RAM SEWAK [LAWS(ALL)-1963-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LUCKNOW VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1974-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ASSESSING OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
D M S RAO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1961-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1976-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
M V HYDROSE VS. DY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(KER)-1970-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
SARO INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SYSTEM VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-321] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH ALIAS NARAYAN MURLIDHAR KABRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL DISTILLERY AND CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1962-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTAKUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
B SANJIVA RAO VS. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2000-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDGI RAM VS. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-1988-8-168] [REFERRED]
KAMESHWAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP N SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-196] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1998-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
MD AFTABUDDIN KHAN VS. CHANDAN BILASINI [LAWS(ORI)-1976-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH ARORA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-191] [REFERRED TO]
OM KAR MAHOLE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS OF CINEMA EXHIBITORS INDUSTRY IN WEST BENGAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KALAM VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
HARNANDAN SINGH VS. ADITYA NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1961-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
BIRHI KALAN L&C CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1964-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. NEW STANDARD ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1990-12-43] [RELIED ON]
GIAN CHAND VS. THE RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1965-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. B L AGARWALLA [LAWS(PAT)-1966-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2024-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
DORJEE TSHERING BHUTIA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS [LAWS(SIK)-1985-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDGI RAM VS. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SAHU STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES VS. DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE [LAWS(ALL)-1993-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
DAMIEN RONGRIN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MEGH)-2016-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
PIONEER LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1963-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
GITA DEVI VS. MUNDER DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1980-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
A V EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2002-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P REP VS. PALLAVA GRANITE INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA KEJRIWAL VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR DE CHOWDHURY VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NADU [LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SUBRATA SARKAR & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1985-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA VS. KAMALNARAIN SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-1964-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
S C BARAT VS. HARI VINAYAK PATASKAR [LAWS(MPH)-1961-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
MASTERSTROKE FREIGHT FORWARDERS PVT. LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
K V KRISHNA VENI VS. K K RAJAGOPAL [LAWS(KER)-1990-1-44] [FOLLOWED ON]
TH BASANTAKUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN AGARWALA VS. SHRIDHAR MISRA [LAWS(ALL)-1961-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
PADRAUNA RAJ KRISHNA SUGAR WORKS LTD. VS. LAND REFORMS COMMISSIONER U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1961-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
M A HARI VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-1987-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPASINDHU MISRA VS. GOBINDA CHANDRA MISRA [LAWS(ORI)-1980-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ARJAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI NARAIN BAJPAI VS. KUSUM BAJPAI [LAWS(ALL)-1974-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
DAS GUPTA, J. -
(1.)On February 20, 1958, there occurred in the Central Bhowra Colliery, in Dhanbad in Bihar an accident as a result of which 23 persons lost their lives. After an inquiry under S. 24 of the Mines Act, 1952, into the causes of and the circumstances attending the accident, and the publication of the report of the inquiry, a complaint was prepared by the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, under the direction of the Chief Inspector of Mines Dhanbad, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, against the appellant for an offence under S. 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, for contravention of regulations 107 and 127 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The Central Bhowra Colliery belongs and belonged at the relevant date to a private company, viz., M/s. Central Bhowra Colliery Co., Private Limited. The appellant is and was a shareholder and a director of this company. After the Sub-Divisional Officer took cognizance of the complaint and issued processes against him, the appellant made an application to the Patna High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of an appropriate writ for quashing the criminal proceedings. This application was summarily dismissed. It is against that order of dismissal that this appeal has been filed by special leave obtained from this Court.
(2.)The two main grounds on which the prayer for quashing the proceedings was based were:(1) that S. 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, in pursuance of which the appellant, who was not himself the owner of the colliery company, but only one of the directors and shareholders has been prosecuted, is void as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution; (2) the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, are invalid having been framed in contravention of S. 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. These two contentions were also urged before us in appeal.
(3.)The first contention is based on an assumption that the word "any one" in S. 76 means only "one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders". This question as regards the interpretation of the word "any one" in S. 76 was raised in Cr. Appeals. Nos. 98 to 106/59, Chief Inspector of Mines, etc. vs. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838 and it has been decided there that the word "any one" should be interpreted there as "every one". Thus under section 76 every one of the shareholders of a private company owning the mine, and every one of the directors of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. No question of violation of Art. 14 therefore arises.
(2.)The two main grounds on which the prayer for quashing the proceedings was based were:(1) that S. 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, in pursuance of which the appellant, who was not himself the owner of the colliery company, but only one of the directors and shareholders has been prosecuted, is void as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution; (2) the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, are invalid having been framed in contravention of S. 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. These two contentions were also urged before us in appeal.
(3.)The first contention is based on an assumption that the word "any one" in S. 76 means only "one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders". This question as regards the interpretation of the word "any one" in S. 76 was raised in Cr. Appeals. Nos. 98 to 106/59, Chief Inspector of Mines, etc. vs. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838 and it has been decided there that the word "any one" should be interpreted there as "every one". Thus under section 76 every one of the shareholders of a private company owning the mine, and every one of the directors of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. No question of violation of Art. 14 therefore arises.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.