Case Note & Summary
Union of India filed a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No.24/81 dated 26.8.1988, which confirmed the acquittal of the respondents in a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 read with Regulation 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The dispute concerned Kamptee Colliery, originally owned by Oriental Coal Company Limited. Permission was granted on 2.1.1971 under Regulation 100(1) to split pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing subject to ten conditions; conditions 5 and 6 were modified on 14.6.1971. After the Central Government took over the mines on 30.1.1973 and ownership vested in Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973, inspections on 2.4.1974 and 26.8.1975 revealed violation of condition No.1 regarding gallery sizes and failure to stow adjacent galleries. The Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtak, alleging contravention of the conditions of permission. The Trial Court acquitted respondents 1 to 4, holding that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 79 and that the respondents were not in management at the relevant time. The High Court confirmed the acquittal but added reasoning that the gist of the offence was depillaring in breach of conditions rather than breach of the conditions themselves; it held that all ten conditions must be read together and that condition No.6 "at any time" related only during splitting operations, so the offence was not continuing. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the offence was continuing under Explanation (a) to Section 79, that conditions should be read disjunctively, and that respondents were liable regardless of not being in office when first detected. The Supreme Court noted a lack of assistance; only the High Court judgment and special leave petition grounds were available, and respondents did not appear. The available text includes the Supreme Court's reference to State of Bihar v. Dev Karan, which defined a continuing offence as one susceptible of continuance and distinguishable from one committed once and for all. However, the extracted portion of the judgment ends before the final holding and operative order. Therefore the final decision is not mentioned in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Continuing Offence - Explanation (a) to Section 79 of Mines Act, 1952 - Offence arising out of failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement is continuing - The court considered whether contravention of conditions in permission under Regulation 100(1) for depillaring constituted a continuing offence, noting that the High Court had accepted that violation of conditions 3 and 6 would be continuing but ultimately held the offence completed upon commencement of splitting - Held that a continuing offence is susceptible of continuance and distinguishable from one committed once and for all (Paras Not mentioned). B) Statutory Interpretation - Conditions of Permission - Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 Regulation 100(1) - Whether conditions in permission Ex.27 dated 2.1.1971 must be read conjunctively or disjunctively - High Court held ten conditions composite, to be read together, and condition No.6 "at any time" related only to period of splitting operation; appellant argued conditions should be read disjunctively, especially those involving non-stowing - Held the court was considering this question; no final determination available in extracted text (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Liability - Persons in Management - Mines Act, 1952 Section 73 - Liability of persons not in management at first detection if offence is continuing - The appellant contended that if the offence is continuing under Explanation (a) to Section 79, respondents not in office when first detected are answerable; High Court had acquitted them partly on lack of management - Held the issue was under consideration by the Supreme Court; no final holding available (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the offence of contravening conditions of permission under Regulation 100(1) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 is a continuing offence under Explanation (a) to Section 79 of Mines Act, 1952; whether the conditions in permission Ex.27 dated 2.1.1971 must be read conjunctively or disjunctively; whether respondents Nos. 1 to 4 could be prosecuted when they were not in management at the time of first detection
Law Points
- Continuing offence under Explanation (a) to Section 79 Mines Act
- 1952
- interpretation of conditions in permission under Regulation 100(1) Coal Mines Regulations
- 1957
- whether breach of conditions constitutes depillaring offence
- liability of persons not in management if offence continuing
- conjunctive vs disjunctive reading of permission conditions
