THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1889 of 2005 Date: 14.10.2011 Between: The Union of India, rep.by the Inspector of Mines, Hyderabad. … Petitioners AND P. Appa Rao, General Manager and Agent of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RK-8 Mine, Srirampur Colony – 504 303, Adillabad District, and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1889 of 2005 ORDER: The Union of India, represented by the Inspector of Mines, Hyderabad, preferred the present revision assailing the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet (trial Court, for short), dated 25.01.2005 passed in C.C.No.946 of 2000. The three accused, who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, allegedly committed the offences under Sections 72-C and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 (the Act, for short). 2. The prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. Holding that the sanction as envisaged under Section 75 of the Act had not been obtained to prosecute the accused, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. He, however, recorded that the proceedings against A.1 to A.3 were dropped and the complaint filed by PW.1 was rejected. 3. The unfortunate circumstances which lead to the case may briefly be stated: a) During the third shift at Mine RK-8, as many as 12 coal fillers were lifting blasted coal on 31.05.2000. Suddenly the roof gave in and fell over in a total extent of 2200 square meters. A coal cutter by name Thota Pocham died in the said accident. Considering that the load cells were not provided at 12 feet deep in 11/LN junction to monitor roof/strata movement, as required under Regulation 100 (1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 and that had the regulation been followed, the accident would have been averted, the prosecution was launched against the three accused. b) A.1 to A.3 failed to take safety measures in accordance with the Regulation lest accident should not have occurred. 4. As already pointed out, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Holding that the prosecution was without sanction u/s.75 of the Act, the prosecution of the accused was rejected by the learned trial Judge. The allegation against the accused was that the accused violated the provisions under Sections 72-C and 73 of the Act. Section 72-C imposes punishment if the conditions of the Act are violated. Section 73 of the Act provides punishment for disobeying any statutory duty. Unfortunately, Section 75 of the Act bars prosecution against the owner, agent or the manager of a Mine for any offence under the Act, except with the prior permission of the Chief Inspector or the Inspector in writing. In the present case, admittedly, the sanction envisaged by Section 75 of the Act was not accorded for prosecuting any of the three accused. 5. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioner is perfectly justified in submitting that no case was made out as the very prosecution was without sanction. There is no alternative but to acquit the accused. The trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting all the accused. 6. I may, however, point out that apart from the offences under Sections 72-C and 73 of the Act, the incident resulted in the death, grievous and simple injuries to various workmen. If the violation of the provisions under Sections 72-C and 73 of the Act can be prosecuted with prior sanction u/s.75 of the Act only, the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) do not require such a sanction. Nevertheless, the State apparently has not evinced any interest in prosecuting the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC. However, the main consideration in this case is whether the accused are liable for punishment under Sections 72-C and 73 of the Act. 7. In view of the admitted fact that there is no sanction to prosecute the accused, the accused are entitled to acquittal for these offences. The trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. There is no error on record. 8. The Criminal Revision Case, consequently, is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 14.10.2011 Isn