R.R.Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that when one Ayub Sheik working in the Mines died, a case was lodged by the father of the deceased which was registered as U.D case No. 9 of 2007. When enquiry in that matter was taken by the Officer -in -Charge, Maheshpur Police Station, he did find that Ayub Sheik died, on account of receiving injuries due to explosion caused in a mine, lessee of which is the petitioner No. 1 whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the manager of the petitioner No. 1 and for that, First Information Report was lodged which was registered as Maheshpur (Raddipur) P.S. Case No. 155 of 2007 (G.R. No. 611 of 2007) under sections 304, 286,337,338, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of the charge -sheet, the Court vide its order dated 5.2.2008 took cognizance of the offences which has been challenged in this application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that allegations upon which the aforesaid First Information Report has been lodged would fall within the mischief of the provision as enshrined in section 72 -C of the Mines Act, 1952 which is a special legislation and will have overriding effect upon the provision of the General Law and, therefore, any prosecution under the General Law is not permissible and hence, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. Learned Counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision rendered in a case of Binod Kumar Das and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2008 (64) AIC 430 (Jhar., H.C.) and also in a case of Rabindra Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 (2) JCR 667 (Jhr)
(3.) MR . Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3 submits that after the accident took place in which one of the person died for which the police case has been registered the Director General of Mines Safety, Sitarampur Region No. III held an enquiry and found that due to blasting operation done within the leasehold area a person not an employee of the petitioner received injury beyond the leasehold area of Mines and therefore, the police has rightly instituted the case under the provision of the Indian Penal Code.;