Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) The petitioner of this revision application calls in question the legality of the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.M.A. Case No.614 of 2000 whereby and where under a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for his discharge, has been rejected.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to present revision, lies in a narrow compass. The prosecution case which is based on a written complaint filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 on 01.12.2000 relates to an accident which had taken place on 27.09.1995 at 1.30 a.m. at below ground workings of X Special Seam worked though No.6 pit of Union Angarpathra unit of Gaslitand Colliery, Katras area for which a court of enquiry was constituted under Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act') vide notification dated 17.10.1995 by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. At the relevant period during which the said accident took place, one P.N. Mathur was Director and nominated owner of the said colliery under Section 76 of the Act, Ramesh Khanna, P.C. Sood and R.D. Jain were posted as Chief General Manager, Additional General Manager and Area Safety Officer of Katras area and Deemed Agents under Section 2(c) of the said Act. Similarly, B. Kumar (the petitioner) and N. Singh were posted as 'Agent' and 'Manager' respectively, S.K. Ghosh, P.N. Verma and S.K. Dutta were posted as Assistant Manager, Safety Officer and Colliery Engineer respectively and all the accused persons were acting in their respective capacities and they were bound to conduct all mining operations in accordance with provisions of the Mines Act, Rules, Regulations and Orders made thereunder. On receiving information about the accident and that persons are trapped in the below ground workings of Gaslitand colliery due to failure of winders on 27.09.1995 an enquiry was made by the then opposite party no.2 to find out the cause and circumstances leading to the said accident. The court of enquiry was also appointed and the findings of the court of enquiry were published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide Gazette Notification dated 15.12.1999 and from the findings of the enquiry it appears that while 64 persons were engaged in below ground workings when unprecedented heavy rains within a short span of time caused rapid rise in water level of adjoining river on surface which exceeded the prefixed withdrawal level requiring withdrawal of persons from below ground workings but the same went unnoticed and attempts to raise the persons which started much later but with little success. The flood water entered into an adjoining quarry, then breached a retaining wall and the water soon filled up the entire below ground workings, trapping all the 64 work persons, who could not be raised up to the surface and later five dead bodies were recovered. The court of enquiry found several contraventions which caused the said accident including contravention of Regulation 126, 66(2), 76(a) and 36(1)(b) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 and found the petitioner and other accused persons failed to ensure to maintain constant vigilance, to check vulnerable points and effectiveness of safety measures.
(3.) It appears from the record that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by order dated 07.12.2000 took cognizance of the offence under Section 72 (c)(1)(a) and 73 of the Act where after at the instance of present petitioner, a petition for his discharge was filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing the parties and analysing the materials on record and evidence rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner by order dated 11.10.2012 holding that the court of enquiry found this petitioner responsible for the said accident along with other accused persons and also held that the cognizance of the offence under Section 79(iii) was taken under the Act within stipulated period of one year. Hence, this revision.;