D.N.Upadhyay,J. - (1.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.01.2002 passed by the C.J.M., Ranchi in connection with C-II-25 of 2002 whereby cognisance for the offence punishable under Sections 72(A) and 72 (C ) (1) (a) of the Mines Act, 1952 has been taken and the petitioner and other accused named in the complaint have been directed to be summoned to face trial.
(2.) The facts in brief is that a fatal accident took place at a mining site of Rohini Project of C.C.L. on 09.08.2001 at 0100 hours. After receiving information regarding the accident, the Deputy Director of Mines, Safety, Ranchi (Region), who was also Inspector of Mines under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 had made inspection. He was accompanied by Shri Deepak Gupta, Deputy Director General of Mines, Safety, South Eastern Zone, Ranchi and Shri S.K.Mandal, Deputy Director of Mines, Safety, Ranchi (Region). During inspection and enquiry, it was revealed while a Rope Shovel was working on an overburden bench in the night shift in that opencast coal mine, a mass of stone and clay measuring about 5mx 5mx3m fell from height varying from 6 to 7 metre over the operator's cabin inflicting fatal injuries to the Operator namely Tara Singh-II, as a result, Tara Singh died. So far this petitioner is concerned, it is contended in para 2 of the complaint that in contravention of Regulations 98(1), (3) & (5) and Regulation 151 of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 read with the Permission Letter No. RR/1215-18 dated 5th May, 93 the accused No.2 failed to ensure that the side of overburden bench was kept sloped and benched as required and failed to prevent under cutting as well as failed to provide lighting as required. The negligence and violation of Rules committed by other accused further find mentioned in rest of the paragraph of the complaint petition. It is necessary to mention that the petitioner was posted as Manager in the said Rohini Project opencast Mines of C.C.L. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint, passed the order impugned on 30.1.2002 and directed to issue summons against the accused persons.
(3.) It was contended that the petitioner was posted as Manager in the aforesaid project but on the date of incident he was on leave which would be evident from the attendance register of IIIrd shift of August, 2001 (Annexure-4). When Shovel Operator Tara Singh-II died, criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and other accused vide Khalari P.S. Case No. 39/2001, corresponding to G.R.No. 2225/2001 on the basis of fard bayan lodged by Vijay Singh. The case was investigated into and after due investigation final form was submitted but the learned C.J.M. after perusing the case diary and document placed, took cognisance under Sections 287/304(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.12.2004. The order of cognisance was challenged by the accused persons vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 62/2009 and this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to set aside aforesaid cognisance order because cognisance order was time barred. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was on leave with effect from 8.8.2001 to 12.8.2001. On the date of incident i.e. between intervening night 8.08.2001 to 9.8.2001 at about 01.10 hours in the night Tara Singh-II was operating the Shovel and during which aforesaid accident took place. He was very experienced operator and he had assistance of Cable man and Mining Sardar, who were taking immediate care of the operation of the machine. There were other Shovel worker working at the relevant point of time. It is alleged that proper lighting was not provided at the site and for that the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Since the petitioner was not present at the relevant site at the relevant point of time, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence alleged and, therefore, cognisance order by summoning the petitioner and criminal prosecution arising out of C II Case No. 25/2002 in respect of the petitioner may be quashed.;