1957 (3) TMI 69 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules, 1946.
2. Contravention of Rule 3(a) of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946.
3. Question of limitation under Section 79 of the Indian Mines Act.
4. Liability of agents and managers under Section 18 of the Indian Mines Act.
5. Impact of previous acquittals on subsequent prosecutions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of Rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pit-head Bath Rules, 1946:
The first prosecution was for failing to construct a pit-head bath at the Kalapahari Colliery as required by Rule 3(1). The trial and appellate courts found that the pit-head bath was not constructed within the specified time, thus violating the rule. The petitioners admitted that the pit-head bath was not installed up to the time of prosecution, confirming the contravention.

2. Contravention of Rule 3(a) of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946:
The second and third prosecutions were for failing to set up creches at Kalapahari and Muslia Collieries as required by Rule 3(a). The courts found that the creches were not constructed within the required time, thus violating the rule. The petitioners admitted that the creches were not installed, confirming the contravention.

3. Question of Limitation under Section 79 of the Indian Mines Act:
The defense argued that the prosecutions were barred by limitation as the complaints were filed long after the six-month period from the date of the commission of the offences or from the date the Inspector of Mines became aware of the offences. The prosecution argued that the offences were continuing in nature, thus allowing a fresh start of limitation every day the contravention continued. The court held that the offences were indeed continuing offences, meaning the duty to construct pit-head baths and creches continued until fulfilled. However, the court concluded that the principle of a fresh start of limitation every day could not be applied because Section 23 of the Limitation Act, which provides for continuing wrongs, was expressly made inapplicable by Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to cases under the Mines Act. Consequently, the prosecutions were barred by limitation.

4. Liability of Agents and Managers under Section 18 of the Indian Mines Act:
The defense argued that the agents and managers were not liable as the duty to construct pit-head baths and creches was imposed on the owners. The court referred to Section 18 of the Mines Act, which makes the owner, agent, and manager responsible for ensuring that all operations are conducted in accordance with the Act and the rules. The court held that the duty to construct the amenities continued and that the agents and managers were constructively liable under Section 18. However, the court noted that the subsequent amendment to the rules in 1956, which explicitly included agents and managers, was a clarification of the existing law.

5. Impact of Previous Acquittals on Subsequent Prosecutions:
The defense argued that previous acquittals of some petitioners for similar contraventions barred the current prosecutions under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that since the offences were continuing in nature, the previous acquittals did not bar the current prosecutions as they pertained to different periods of contravention.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecutions were barred by limitation and set aside the convictions and sentences. The fines, if recovered, were ordered to be refunded. The order under Section 78 of the Mines Act requiring the construction of the pit-head baths and creches was also set aside. The court expressed regret that the mines would go without the required amenities but emphasized that the limitation issue could not be overlooked.