Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Bermo P.S Case No. 142 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 949 of 1998, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said case. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The petitioner was working as a Manager of Amlo Project of the Central Coalfields Ltd., Dhori Colliery, where on 10.12.1998, an accident took place, in which, one lady died. The FIR was lodged by the husband of the deceased, stating that the informant and his wife were at the Quarter No. MQ -524, situated near the coal mines, where there was an explosion, in which, a big piece of stone suddenly hit the wife of the informant, causing her death at the spot. The said explosion was caused due to the blasting in the mines and accordingly, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the husband of the deceased, the FIR was lodged for the offence under Sections 287, 304 -A & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. Subsequently, charge -sheet was also submitted by the police after investigation, on the basis of which, the cognizance was taken against the petitioner, being the Manager of coal mines.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner and the continuance of criminal proceeding, are absolutely illegal and in teeth of Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is clearly made out under Section 72 -C(1)(a) and Section 73 of the Mines Act, for which, Section 75 of the Mines Act clearly provides that no prosecution can be instituted against any Owner, Agent or Manager of the Mines except at the instance of the Chief Inspector, or of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorized in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actually for the offence under Sections 73 and 72 -C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, a prosecution has already been lodged by the competent authority against the petitioner, which is Criminal Case No. 9 of 1999, for the same accident caused in the mines on 10.12.1998. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of Section 26 of General Clauses Act, both the cases cannot be allowed to continue. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in Bermo P.S Case No. 142 of 1998, corresponding to G.R No. 949 of 1998, including the order taking cognizance passed therein.;