1961 (2) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Negligence and non-observance of Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926.
2. Prosecution under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952.
3. Legal existence of the 1926 Regulations after the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923.
4. Violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
5. Liability of directors under Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952.
6. Interpretation of "any one of the directors" in Section 76.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Negligence and Non-observance of Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926:
The court of enquiry appointed to investigate the accident at Amlabad Colliery concluded that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of several regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. This report was published under Section 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Criminal proceedings were subsequently initiated against 14 individuals, including the colliery's manager and agent, alleging violations of these regulations.

2. Prosecution under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952:
The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed offenses under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, by violating the regulations. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses and issued processes against the accused. Applications were filed to quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the regulations had ceased to exist and that the prosecution violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

3. Legal Existence of the 1926 Regulations after the Repeal of the Mines Act, 1923:
The High Court rejected the contention that the Regulations framed under Section 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, ceased to exist after the repeal of that Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, ensured the continued existence of the regulations. The regulations made under the 1923 Act were deemed to have been made under the 1952 Act, as there was no express provision to the contrary in the later Act.

4. Violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that prosecuting them under the 1952 Act for violations of regulations deemed to be made under the 1952 Act violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the regulations were in force at the time of the alleged contravention and thus constituted a "law in force" at that time. The Court clarified that the phrase "law in force" in Article 20(1) refers to laws factually in operation at the time of the commission of the offense.

5. Liability of Directors under Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952:
The High Court held that not all directors of the company owning the colliery could be prosecuted under Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952. Only one director, chosen by the complainant, could be proceeded against. The Supreme Court, however, interpreted "any one of the directors" to mean "every one of the directors." This interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to hold all directors accountable for ensuring compliance with the Act.

6. Interpretation of "Any One of the Directors" in Section 76:
The Supreme Court analyzed the phrase "any one of the directors" and concluded that it could mean "every one of the directors" in the context of the Mines Act, 1952. The Court emphasized the importance of holding all responsible parties accountable for the safety and proper management of mines. This interpretation avoided any potential violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it did not confer unfettered discretion on the authorities to select which director to prosecute.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the manager and agent (Appeals Nos. 102, 105, and 106) and upheld the continued legal existence of the 1926 Regulations under the 1952 Act. The Court allowed the appeals concerning the interpretation of Section 76 (Appeals Nos. 98 and 99), setting aside the High Court's orders and rejecting the writ petitions. The Court dismissed the appeals regarding the managing agents (Appeals Nos. 100 and 101) and the two directors (Appeals Nos. 103 and 104).

← Previous Next →