Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1072 - SC - Indian LawsCognizance of the criminal complaint - whether cognizance of the criminal complaint taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the appellant G.N. Verma deserves to be set aside in the absence of any allegation made against him in the complaint? - Held that:- In the face of a general statement, which does not contain any allegation, specific or otherwise, it is difficult to hold that the Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to G.N. Verma. The law laid down by this Court in Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010 (2) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) would be squarely applicable. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the facts of this case and given the absence of any allegation in the complaint filed against him no case for proceeding against G.N. Verma has been made out. Regulation 8 -A of the Coal Mines Regulations requires the owner of a mine to submit in writing a statement showing the name and designation of every person authorised to act on behalf of the owner in respect of the management, control, supervision or direction of a mine. There is nothing on record to show that any such statement was furnished by the owner of the mine to the Chief Inspector or the Regional Inspector appointed under the Act. Only a person who is authorised to act on behalf of the owner or purports to act on behalf of the owner may be deemed to be an Agent. In the absence of any statement having been made or any indication having been given by the owner enabling G.N. Verma to act or purport to act on his behalf, it cannot be said that he was a deemed Agent for the mine. The word 'mine' has been defined in Section 2 (j) of the Act and it has no reference to any administrative functions in relation to a mine but only technical matters related thereto.[5] G.N. Verma was the Chief General Manager of the Karkata Colliery and it is not possible to assume that apart from performing administrative duties, he was also involved in technical matters related to the mine having the Bukbuka seam. On the facts of this case, we would need to unreasonably stretch the law to include G.N. Verma as a person vicariously responsible for the lapse that occurred in the mine resulting in a fatal accident. We are of the view that under these circumstances, there is no basis for proceeding under Section 72 -B of the Act against G.N. Verma.
|