Das Gupta, J. - (1.)This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution is against a judgment and order of that court, upholding the conviction of these appellants under S. 73 of the Indian Mines Act, for contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. Rule 3 of these rules requires the owner of every mine to construct there a creche in accordance with the plans prepared in conformity with the rules and previously approved by the competent authority; Rule 7 provides that the owner of the mine shall appoint "a creche in charge, who shall be a woman possessing such qualifications and training as may be approved by the competent authority." The complaint which resulted in the conviction of the two appellants, of whom, one Goenka was the owner of the Khas Jawbad Colliery, and the other, viz., J. N. Gupta, the manager of the colliery, alleged that they had contravened Rule 7 of the Mines, Creche Rules, 1946, inasmuch as no creche attendant as required by that rule had been appointed there. After an appeal of the present appellants to the Court of Sessions was dismissed, they moved the High Court in revision, but were unsuccessful, except that their sentences were reduced. The High Court however gave a certificate under Art. 134(1) (c) and on that certificate the present appeal has been filed.
(2.)The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are, (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, had stood repealed, along with the repeal by S. 88 of the Mines Act of 1952, of the Mines Act, 1923, under which these rules were admittedly framed and, (2) they having been framed under S. 30(bb) of the Mines Act 1923, cannot be deemed to be rules made under the Mines Act, 1952, as the requirements of the corresponding section of the 1952 Act, viz., S. 58(d) are different from what is required by S. 30(bb) of the 1923 Act.
(3.)In Chief Inspector of Mines vs. Karan Thaper Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106/59, we have decided that regulations framed under S. 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, survive the repeal of that Act. The same reasons which form the basis of that decision apply to the rules framed under S. 30 of the Mines Act,1923:and so, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants must be rejected as unsound.