HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the F.I. R. of Malpahari RS. Case No. 74 of 2002 and also for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
(2.) FACTS leading to filing of this application are that informant 'snephew Khabirul Sheikh had gone as usual to work at the stone mines with other labourers. At about 2.00 P.M. the informant got information that due to explosion in the mines of Sri Hiralal Bhakat, 5 -6 persons have sustained serious injuries. He immediately rushed to the site where he found a damaged dumper and as he got information that all the injured have been removed to Rajgram Hospital for treatment, he reached the said hospital where he found his nephew and one Mantu Sheikh dead and he also saw other seriously injured labourers there. Further case of the prosecution is that while labourers were loading boulders in the dumper at one O 'clock, suddenly there was explosion in the northern side of the mine and big pieces of stones flew from the place of blast and hit the dumper. According to the informant, blasting was the outcome of causing explosion in the mines without taking proper precaution and vigilance by the owner, Mate and Manager, who is petitioner. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a case bearing Malpahari P.S. Case No. 74 of 2002 was instituted against three persons for the offence punishable under sections 324/307/ 304/427/334 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Manager of the accused -owner Hiralal Bhakat who is lessee under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and under Rule 155 of the Explosive Sub -stance Rules, the explosive licence was granted in favour of the owner vide order of the Controller of explosive, Hazaribagh dated 13.2.2002 which was valid till 31.3.2003 (Annexure -2). It was further submitted that owner was never served any kind of notice intimating him about the shortcomings in the mines safety; rather the Manager who is petitioner, had been very prompt so far as the matter related to the safety of mines is concerned and no complaint in the past ever lodged against him.
(3.) IT is further submitted that there was no violation of any of the provisions of Explosive Substance Act so as to attract the prosecution of the petitioner for the loss of life and bodily injury to persons. It was further submitted that police had no business to institute an F.I.R. because the mining operations are guided by special law and that Section 72 -C of the Mines Act, 1952 is the penal section and the accused can be tried under section 72 -C of the Mines Act, 1952 only and not under the General Law. In this connection, reliance was placed upon 2002(2) East Cr.C. 77.;