http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI A.B. SHAH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1996

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   128        1996 SCALE  (4)307

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.VENKATASWAMI,J.      Aggrieved by  the judgment  in Criminal Appeal no.24/81 dated 26.8.1988  on the  file of  Bombay High  Court (Nagpur Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.      The appellant preferred a complaint under section 73 of the Mines  Act 1952  (hereinafter referred  to as "the Act") read  with   Regulation  No.  100  (1)  of  the  Coal  Mines Regulations  1957   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "the Regulation"). The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be  stated in brief to appreciate the contentions raised before us. The facts are as under :      Kamptee Colliery  originally was  owned by the Oriental Coal Company  Limited. At  the  instance  of  the  agent  of Oriental Coal Company Limited, the Director General of Mines Safety  granted  permission  on  2.1.1971  under  Regulation 100(1) of  the Regulations  to split  pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seam in the area. Later on, the  agent of  the Oriental Coal Company Limited applied for certain  modifications in  conditions Nos. 5 and 6 which was granted  on 14.6.1971.  Subsequently, on  30.1.1973, the possession of  the coal  mines was taken over by the Central Government and  the ownership  of the said coal mines vested in the Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973. The Deputy Director of Mines  at Nagpur made an inspection on 2.4.1974 and found that the  sizes of split galleries were about 8.2 meters. It was in  violation of  condition No.1 imposed by the Director of Mines  Safety. The  agent was  called upon to explain the violation by  the Joint  Director of  Mines  Safety  by  his letter dated  30.4.1974. A  reply  was  sent  on  13.5.1974. Explanation  was   called  for   from  respondent   No.1  on 10.8.1974.  No   reply  was  received,  inspite  of  several reminders.  The   Deputy  Director  of  Mines  Safety  again inspected the mines in question on 26.8.1975, along with the agent. and  found the violation of condition No.1 continuing and also  found that  the adjacent  galleries were  not kept

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

stowed of  the pillar  where splitting  had commenced. After the taking  over of  mines as mentioned above. the coal mine in question  formed part of the Western Coal Fields Limited. As  the   concerned  persons   had  not  complied  with  the conditions subject  to which  the splitting  of  pillars  in conjunction with  hydraulic sand  stowing was  granted,  the Inspector (now,  Deputy Director of Mines) filed a complaint in the  Court of  Judicial Magistrate,  First Class, Ramtak, Nagpur,  alleging   contravention  of   the  conditions   of permission. The  Trial Court  framed charges  accordingly to which respondent  Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  tried. Two  principal contentions  were  advanced  in defence before the Trial Court. They were that the complaint was barred  by limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the Act and  in any  case, respondent  Nos. 1  to 4  were not in management of  the coal  mines in  question when the alleged offence was  alleged to  have been committed and, therefore, they could not be criminally proceeded against.      The learned  Trial Judge  accepted both the contentions of respondent  Nos. 1  to 4 and consequently acquitted them. On appeal  preferred by  the appellant,  the High Court also confirmed the  acquittal  accepting  the  same  contentions. Hence the present appeal.      Before dealing with the question of law that arises for Our consideration,  we want  to express  our anguish that we did not  get the  required  assistance  in  this  case.  The appellant except  filing the  Judgment of the High Court and the grounds for special leave did not take any step, inspite of passing  of 13  years to  file other  important  relevant papers to  help the  Court in  deciding the  issue, i.e. the judgment of  the Trial  Court, the charge sheet filed in the Trial Court, the evidence - both oral and documentary, reply given by  the agent for the initial notice etc. They are all required to fully appreciate the issue raised before us. The further agony  is that  inspite of  notices  served  on  the respondents,  none   appeared  before   us  to   answer  the contentions raised in this Appeal. In this state of affairs, we have decided the issue on the basis of the typed judgment of the  High Court which alone is made available, apart from the grounds in the special leave petition.      The  learned   counsel  appearing   for  the  appellant submitted that  the Trial  Court as  well as  the High Court grossly erred in not accepting the contention put forward on behalf  of   the  complainant/appellant   that  the  offence committed by  the respondents  being ’continuing’  in nature falling under  Explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Act, the complaint was not barred by time. He also submitted that the High Court  having rightly  noted that out of 10 conditions, non-compliance of  condition Nos.  3 and  6 would fall under ‘continuing offence’, fell into an error in holding that all the  conditions   must  be   read  conjunctively   and   not disjunctively. If  the offence  is  a  ‘continuing  offence’ falling under Explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Act, then notwithstanding the  fact that  respondent Nos.  1 to 4 were not in  office when the offence was first detected, they are answerable to the charges levelled against them.      We have  perused the judgment of the High Court. Before going to the actual question, it is necessary to set out the conditions subject  to which  the permission was granted. As the document  was not  typed and  produced before us, we are setting out  the relevant  portion from  the judgment of the High Court which reads as follows :      "By  the  letter  ex.27  dated  2nd      January 1971,  the Director General      of  Mines  Safety  granted  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    Agent of  the Messrs. Oriental Coal      Company Limited,  Kamptee  Colliery      "permission under regulation 100(1)      of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957      to  split  pillars  in  conjunction      with hydraulic  sand stowing in No.      1 seam  in the  area  indicated  in      plan No.1  Dep/15/70 dated  26.6.70      at Kamptee Colliery" subject to the      following conditions :      1. Each  pillar  shall  be  divided      into four  equal stooks  by central      dip and level splits. For different      depths,  the  maximum  and  minimum      dimensions of  galleries and stooks      respectively shall be as follows :      For depth     Gallery which Stooks shall be      not exceeding shall not     less than                    exceed      60 metres     5.4 metres    5   mts x 5   mts      90 metres     5.4 metres    6.6 mts x 6.6 mts      120 metres    5.4 metres    9   mts x 9   mts      153 metres    4.8 metres   10.5 mts x 10.5mts      2. The final height of original and      split galleries  shall  not  exceed      3.6 meters.      3. After splitting is completed all      original and  split galleries shall      be stowed solid with sand.      4. Not  more than two pillars shall      be under splitting at any time in a      panel.      5. A  pillar  shall  not  be  split      unless  all   original  and   split      galleries on  the inbye  side  have      been fully stowed.      6. Not  more than a total length of      45 meters  of split  shall be  left      unstowed at  any time  in  a  whole      panel. (Emphasis added)      7.  Before  starting  splitting  of      pillars in  a panel,  it  shall  be      insolated    by     stoppings    in      compliance with  the provisions  of      regulation 100(4) of the Coal Mines      Regulation, 1957, and an intimation      to that  effect shall  be  sent  to      this  Directorate   and  the  Joint      Director  of  Mines  Safety.  These      stopping shall  be  constructed  to      the  specifications  laid  down  in      this Directorate  Circular No.17 of      1964 as  modified by  Circular No.1      of 1968.      8. No  splitting  or  reduction  of      pillars shall  be done  beneath and      in      the       vicinity       of      dwelling/building or  public  road,      if any,  likely to  be affected  by      the splitting operations.      9. In  the event  of any  change in      the  circumstances  connected  with      this splitting permission, which is      likely to  affect the safety of the      work persons  or the  mine  or  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    surface  features,   an  intimation      shall be  sent immediately  to this      Directorate and  the Joint Director      of  Mines,   Safety  and  splitting      operations shall  be  stopped.  The      splitting of  pillars shall  not be      resumed, except  with permission in      writing from  the Director  General      of Mines, Safety.      10. The  above  permission  may  be      amended or  withdrawn at  any time,      if considered necessary.           By  letter   ex.28  dated  8th      April  1971,   the  Agent   of  the      Oriental  Coal   Company,   Kamptee      Colliery applied  to  the  Director      General  of   Mines   Safety,   for      certain modifications in conditions      Nos.  5   and  6   of   the   above      conditions and  by the letter Ex.31      dated   14.6.1971    the   Director      General of  Mines, Safety  accepted      the  proposal  and  modified  these      conditions.     These      modified      conditions were as follows :      Condition No.5 :           A   pillar    shall   not   be      completely   split    unless    all      original and split galleries on the      inbye side  have been fully stowed.      (i.e.  the  word  "completely"  was      added) and      Condition No.6:           Not more  than 150  meters  of      split  galleries   shall  be   left      unstowed at  anytime in  the  whole      panel.  (i.e.   the   figure   "150      meters"  was  substituted  for  the      original words "45 meters").      It is  seen from the judgment of the High Court that it accepted that  violation of  condition Nos.  3 and  6  would constitute ‘continuing  offence’ in the light of Sections 73 and  79   of  the  Act  read  with  Regulation  100  of  the Regulations. The High Court however held as follows :      "Here,   Shri    Bobde   for    the      respondents  Nos.   1  to   4  very      rightly pointed  out that  the gist      of  the   offence   alleged   under      Section 73  of the  Mines Act, 1952      in    the     present    case    is      ‘dipillaring’  in   breach  of  the      conditions contained in Ex.27 dated      2.1. 1971 and not the breach of the      said     conditions     themselves.      Analyzing the provisions of Section      73 of  the Mines  Act, 1952, it was      pointed  out   that   the   section      contemplates   3    categories   of      contraventions   made    punishable      thereunder :      (a) Contravention of any provisions      of the Mines Act, 1952, or      (b)    Contravention     of     any      regulation, rule  or  bye-law  made      under the  Mines  Act,  1952  (i.e.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    subordinate legislation), or      (c) contravention of any order made      under any  provisions of  the Mines      Act, 1952  or under any regulation,      rule  or  bye-law  made  under  the      Mines Act, 1952 (i.e. contravention      of order made under any subordinate      legislation under  the  Mines  Act.      1952).           The present  was  not  a  case      falling under  the category  (a) or      (c) above.  There was no order made      in writing as would come within the      ambit   of    category   (c).   The      permission Ex.27 dated 2.1.1971 was      not an "order" made under the Mines      Act, 1952  or under  the provisions      of  any   subordinate   legislation      thereunder. Shri  Bobde pointed out      instances of  provisions for making      of  such  orders  by  reference  to      section 22  and 72(b)  of the Mines      Act, 1952  and to  Regulations Nos.      65, 101,  103 and  128 of  the Coal      Mines Regulations  1957. Shri Bobde      is   entirely    right   in   these      contentions.  The   gist   of   the      offence alleged in the present case      is "depillaring"  in  contravention      of the  conditions in  Ex.27  dated      2.1.1971  on  which  permission  to      depillar was granted. Breach of any      of these  conditions by  itself  is      not punishable  under Section 73 of      the Mines Act, 1952."      The High Court further held in paragraph 12 as under :      "Here  Shri   Bobde  very   rightly      pointed out that the ten conditions      contained  in  the  letter  Ex.  27      dated  2.1.71   have  to   be  read      together as  a whole and not one or      two  of   them  separately  and  in      isolation  without   the   context.      These   ten   are   the   composite      conditions on  which permission  to      depillar  is  granted.  Shri  Bobde      drew  my  attention  to  the  title      mentioned at  the  subject  of  the      letter Ex. 27 dated 2.1.71 which in      essence is  "permission -  to split      pillars   in    conjunction    with      hydraulic sand  stowing -"  stowing      with sand  is, therefore,  intended      as  an   integral   part   of   the      operation  of   splitting  pillars,      i.e. depillaring and does not stand      on its  own independent basis. Shri      Bobde pointed  out that there is no      provision in the Mines Act, 1952 or      the  Coal  Mines  Regulations  1957      under which  the running  of a mine      with  a   failure  to   stow  after      depillaring  is   itself  made   an      offence. The  charge in the present      case is  in respect  of  breach  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    regulation 100  (1), the subject of      which is  "Depillaring  operation",      in   essence    the    charge    is      "Depillaring"  or   "splitting"  in      breach of  the conditions  on which      permission  to  split  pillars  was      granted  vide  letter  Ex.27  dated      2.1.1971."      So far  as condition  No.6 is concerned, the High Court held as follows :      "Therefore the  words "at any time"      contained in  condition  No.6"  not      more  than   150  meters  of  split      galleries shall be left unstowed at      any  time   in  the   whole  panel"      necessarily   imply   "during   the      operation of  splitting",  and  are      not  indicative   of  a   state  of      continuity in  the mines year after      the splitting  is completed,  as  a      continuing contravention punishable      under Section  73 of the Mines Act,      1952, read  with Regulation  100(1)      of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957.      The offence  is, therefore,  not  a      continuing one,  it is completed as      soon as splitting or dipillaring is      commenced or  conducted or  carried      out  in   breach  of   any  of  the      conditions on  which permission  to      depillar was granted."      Now, the  issue is  whether the High Court was right in coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  offence  was  not  a ’continuing  offence’  on  the  main  ground  that  all  the conditions must be read together.      In State  of Bihar vs. Dev Karan (AIR 1973 SC 908) this Court  had   the  occasion   to  consider   the  meaning  of ’continuing  offence’   falling  under  Explanation  (a)  to Section 79 of the Act. This Court held as follows in para 5:      "Continuing offence is one which is      susceptible of  continuance and  is      distinguishable from  the one which      is committed  once and  for all. It      is  one  of  those  offences  which      arise out  of a  failure to obey or      comply   with   a   rule   or   its      requirement  and  which  involve  a      penalty, the  liability  for  which      continues until  the  rule  or  its      requirement is  obeyed or  complied      with. On  every occasion  that such      disobedience    or    noncompliance      occurs  and  recurs  there  is  the      offence committed.  The distinction      between the  two kinds  of offences      is between an act or omission which      constitutes an offence once and for      all and  an act  or omission  which      continues and therefore constitutes      a  fresh   offence  every  time  or      occasion on  which it continues. In      the case  of a  continuing offence,      there is  thus  the  ingredient  of      continuance of the offence which is      absent in  the case  of an  offence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    which takes  place when  an act  or      omission is  committed once and for      all."      Bearing the  above principle  in mind,  we have to find out whether  the offence  committed by  the respondents,  in particular violation  of conditions  Nos. 3  and 6, could be treated as  ’continuing offence’  or completed  offence.  To appreciate this,  we must  also bear  in mind the object and purpose of  the Act.  This we  can get  from the  long title which reads  "An  Act  to  amend  and  consolidate  the  law relating to the regulation of labour and safety in mines". If we  look into  condition Nos.3  and 6 with the object and purpose of  the Act  in mind.  it has  to be held that these conditions are  not only  relatable to  what was required at the  commencement   of  dipillaring   of  process,  but  the unstowing for  the required  length must  exist always.  The expression "at any time" finding place in condition No.6 has to mean,  in the  context in which it has been used, "at any point of  time", the  effect of  which is  that the required length must  be maintained  all the time. The accomplishment of object  of the  Act, one of which is safety in the mines, requires taking  of such  a view, especially in the backdrop of repeated  mine disasters  which have been taking, off and on, heavy toll of lives of the miners. It may be pointed out that the  word "any"  has a  diversity  of  meaning  and  in Black’s ’Law  Dictionary’ it  has been stated that this word may be  employed to  indicate  "all"  or  "every",  and  its meaning will  depend "upon the context and subject matter of the statute".  A  reference  to  what  has  been  stated  in Stroud’s ’Judicial  Dictionary’ Vol.I, is revealing inasmuch as the  import of  the word  "any" has  been explained  from pages 145  to 153  of the  4th Edition,  a perusal  of which shows it  has different  connotations depending primarily on the subject  matter of  the statute  and the  context of its use. A  Bench of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs.M.K. Gupta  1994 (1) SCC 243, gave a very wide meaning to this word finding place in the section 2(o) of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 defining "service".(See para 4).      We, therefore,  hold that the aforesaid conditions have to be  obeyed always,  disobedience of  which  shall  become "continuing offence,"  in the  light of what has been stated in the  decision of  Dev Karan  (supra). So,  even if  other conditions are  held to  be falling under completed offence, violation of  condition Nos. 3 and 6 cannot be so treated as to invoke  the time limit prescribed under Section 79 of the Act. Therefore,  we are  inclined to  differ from  the  view taken  by   the  High  Court  and  hold  that  violation  of conditions Nos.  3 and  6 are  ’continuing offences’ and the charge  framed  is  not  barred  by  limitation.  Once  this conclusion is  reached, the  plea taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 4  that they  were not  the concerned  officers when  the offence was detected, will not hold water. Consequently, the preliminary objection  raised by  the respondent  Nos.1 to 4 cannot be sustained.      The  appeal  is,  therefore,  allowed.  The  matter  is remanded to  the Trial  Court  for  disposal  on  merits  in accordance with law.