Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 535 - SC - Indian LawsAccident at mining Colliery - mines worked in contravention of SSR - Held that - Specific responsibility as laid upon the manager to ensure that no mine or part of a mine shall be worked in contravention of SSR and the provisions of SSR are to be effectively complied with. Mahendra Prasad Gupta and Nageshwar Sharma were working as General Manager and Additional General Manager respectively. As part of the report accepts that they were neither appointed as agent nor manager. They were not the managers of the mines either. Therefore, they are not covered by sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act. Though, it is alleged that they took part in management, control, supervision and direction of the mine, and on that basis, they are treated as agents . The prosecution did not produce any material to substantiate the aforesaid or mention the basis for this conclusion. In order to make them liable, it was necessary to show that they had contravened the provisions of the Act or of Regulations, Rules, Bye-Laws made there-under. They are also not covered under the categories of those persons which are specified in sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was not appropriate to convict these two appellants and their conviction is accordingly set aside. With this we advert to the question of sentence that is given by the courts below to Binoy Kumar Mishra and Madhusudan Banerjee. It was argued by the learned counsel for these two appellants that having regard to certain extenuating factors, even if the conviction is maintained, they may be fastened with the sentence of fine only. We are inclined to accept this submission of the counsel for these two appellants. No doubt, the incident was unfortunate, but it is an old incident which occurred more than 20 years ago. No doubt, Binoy Kumar Mishra was holding the post of Manager and in that capacity he was supposed to exercise due diligence. At the same time, mine was under the direct control of other three persons who stand convicted and in respect of whom the conviction and sentence has become final. The only role attributed to him was that he acted in violation of SSR. The fault on his part was more in the nature of negligence in performance of his duties and that he could have exercised little more diligence. Insofar as Madhusudan Banerjee is concerned, no doubt, he was an agent and, therefore, was directly responsible to ensure that safety measures are taken. However, we find that he retired from service 15 years ago. He is 75 years of age and is suffering from various ailments, including heart disease. He met with an accident in October 2016 and fractured his hip bone because of which he is confined to bed and cannot even go to toilet without help. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances in respect of these two appellants, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by imposing the sentence of fine only. Conviction under Section 72A of the Act entails maximum imprisonment of six months or with fine which may extend to ₹ 2,000/-, or with both. Likewise, Section 72C(1)(a) stipulates imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to ₹ 5,000/- or with both. Section 72C(1)(b), likewise, prescribes maximum imprisonment of one year or with fine which may extend to ₹ 3,000/-, or with both. The sentences imposed by the trial court are modified in respect of these two appellants by substituting the sentence of maximum fine prescribed under the aforesaid provisions, which would be ₹ 2,000/-, ₹ 5,000/- and ₹ 3,000/- respectively.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability and culpability of the accused under the Mines Act, 1952. 2. Interpretation and application of the Systematic Support Rules (SSR) under Regulation 108 of the Central Mines Rules, 1957. 3. Burden of proof under Section 18(5) of the Mines Act, 1952. 4. Evaluation of evidence and findings of lower courts. 5. Sentencing considerations for the convicted appellants. Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability and Culpability of the Accused: The case revolves around an incident at Kusunda Colliery resulting in fatalities and injuries. The accused were charged under Sections 72A, 72C(1)(a), and 72C(1)(b) of the Mines Act, 1952, for non-cognizable offences. The trial court convicted the accused, which was upheld by the sessions court and the High Court. 2. Interpretation and Application of SSR: The SSR under Regulation 108 required specific support measures in the mine. The prosecution alleged that the accused failed to support the place of occurrence as per SSR, leading to the accident. The trial court and the appellate courts found that the violation of SSR was established, citing inadequate support and failure to reinforce the roof. 3. Burden of Proof under Section 18(5) of the Mines Act, 1952: The appellants argued that the burden of proof, as per Section 18(5) of the Act, was not adequately discharged by the prosecution. The court held that the initial burden of proving foundational facts was on the prosecution, which was duly discharged. The legal burden then shifted to the accused to prove their innocence, which they failed to do. 4. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of Lower Courts: The trial court formulated specific points for determination, including whether the mining operation was ongoing and whether the accident resulted from neglect or omission. The findings were affirmative, and the High Court upheld these findings, noting that the appellants did not argue the findings were perverse. 5. Sentencing Considerations: The Supreme Court considered the extenuating circumstances, including the long duration since the incident and the health conditions of some appellants. The court modified the sentences for Binoy Kumar Mishra and Madhusudan Banerjee to fines only, citing their roles and personal circumstances. The convictions of Mahendra Prasad Gupta and Nageshwar Sharma were set aside due to insufficient evidence of their direct involvement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Binoy Kumar Mishra and Madhusudan Banerjee but modified their sentences to fines. The convictions of Mahendra Prasad Gupta and Nageshwar Sharma were set aside due to lack of evidence proving their direct involvement in the management, control, supervision, or direction of the mine. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to safety regulations and the responsibilities of mine managers and agents under the Mines Act, 1952.
|