Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a tragic accident on February 5, 1955, at the Amlabad Colliery in Manbhum District, Bihar, which resulted in the death of 52 persons and injury to one. A court of enquiry appointed under the Mines Act, 1952 submitted a report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of certain regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. The report was duly published under Section 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Subsequently, on March 3, 1956, the manager and agent of the colliery were informed that a court of enquiry was being constituted under clause (a) of Regulation 48 to inquire into their conduct. Criminal proceedings were instituted against 14 persons, including the manager, the agent, all directors of the colliery-owning company, and directors of the managing agents. Two separate complaints alleged violation of several regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926, and offenses under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act, 1952. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance on May 23, 1956, and issued processes against all 14 accused. Six accused persons, including two directors of the owner company and directors of the managing agents, filed applications before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. They contended that the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926, framed under the Mines Act, 1923, had ceased to have legal existence upon repeal of the 1923 Act by the Mines Act, 1952, because Section 31(4) of the 1923 Act deemed regulations to be part of the Act. They further argued that prosecution violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution since the regulations were not "laws in force". The two directors of the owner company additionally argued that Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 permitted prosecution of only one director, while the managing agents' directors contended that managing agents were not owners of the colliery and thus could not be prosecuted. The High Court rejected the contention that the regulations had ceased to exist, holding they continued in force. It accepted the managing agents' directors' contention that they were not liable and quashed proceedings against them. The High Court also held that under Section 76, only one director of the owner company could be prosecuted and directed the Chief Inspector of Mines and Regional Inspector of Mines to choose one director for prosecution and remove others from the array of accused. The manager and agent's applications were dismissed. Cross appeals were filed by the directors, the manager and agent, and the Chief Inspector of Mines. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that where an Act is repealed and re-enacted, rules and regulations framed under the repealed Act continue in force and are deemed to have been made under the re-enacted provisions. It held that Section 31(4) of the Mines Act, 1923, despite deeming regulations part of the Act, must be construed to preserve continuity, and thus the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 continued in force and were deemed regulations under the Mines Act, 1952. On Article 20(1), the Court held that these regulations were "laws in force" and no constitutional violation occurred. Interpreting Section 76, the Court held that "any one of the directors" means "every one of the directors", overruling the High Court's single-director direction and permitting prosecution of all directors. Finally, the Court held that managing agents were neither owners nor occupiers within Section 2(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, so prosecution of their directors was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeals of the Chief Inspector against the managing agents' directors were partly allowed, the appeals by the two directors against the single-director direction were allowed, and the manager and agent's appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Continuance of Subordinate Legislation - Repeal and Re-enactment - Mines Act, 1923 Section 31(4); Mines Act, 1952; General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 24 - The Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 framed under Section 29 of the Mines Act, 1923 continued in force after repeal of the 1923 Act because Section 24 of the General Clauses Act preserves rules and regulations on re-enactment; Section 31(4) of the old Act, which deemed regulations part of the Act, was construed so as not to destroy continuity. Held that the regulations were deemed to have been made under the Mines Act, 1952 and remained in force at the relevant date (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitution - Ex Post Facto Law - Article 20(1) - Constitution of India, Article 20(1) - The Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926, though deemed to be regulations under the Mines Act, 1952, were nonetheless "laws in force" within the meaning of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, so prosecution for pre-existing violations was not barred. Held that Article 20(1) was not violated (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Interpretation of "any one of the directors" - Mines Act, 1952 Section 76 - The expression "any one of the directors" in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 means "every one of the directors", thus all directors of the owner company could be prosecuted, and the High Court erred in directing selection of only one. Held that prosecution of all directors was permissible (Paras Not mentioned). D) Mines and Minerals - Liability of Managing Agents - Owner/Occupier Definition - Mines Act, 1952 Section 2(1) - Managing agents of the colliery company were neither the owner of the mine nor the occupier within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Mines Act, 1952; therefore, prosecution of the directors of the managing agents was not maintainable. Held that the prosecution against the directors of the managing agents was quashed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 continued in force after repeal of the Mines Act, 1923; whether prosecution violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution; whether Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 permits prosecution of only one director or all directors; whether managing agents or their directors could be prosecuted as owners or occupiers of the mine
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 continued in force and were deemed regulations under the Mines Act, 1952 by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; prosecution did not violate Article 20(1); Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 allowed prosecution of all directors because 'any one of the directors' means 'every one of the directors'; managing agents were neither owners nor occupiers under Section 2(1), so prosecution of their directors was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals by the two directors against the single-director direction, partly allowed the appeals by the Chief Inspector against the managing agents' directors, and dismissed the manager and agent's appeals.
Law Points
- Rules and regulations framed under a repealed Act continue in force and are deemed made under the re-enacted Act by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act
- 1897
- Section 31(4) of the Mines Act
- 1923
- which deemed regulations part of the Act
- did not destroy their continuity after repeal
- Regulations deemed to be made under Mines Act
- 1952 are "laws in force" under Article 20(1) of the Constitution
- The expression "any one of the directors" in Section 76 of the Mines Act
- 1952 means "every one of the directors"
- Managing agents of a colliery company are neither owners nor occupiers under Section 2(1) of the Mines Act
- 1952
