Case: G.N. Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand &amp; Another

Section 141 is a penal provision creating a vicarious liability. It was held as follows: "It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent 1 was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statutes create vicarious liability." It was then concluded: "The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction." 20. Insofar as the criminal complaint is concerned, it does not contain any allegation against G.N. Verma. The only statement concerning him is that he was the Chief General Manager/deemed Agent of the mine and was exercising supervision, management and control of the mine and in that capacity was bound to see that all mining operations were conducted in accordance with the Act, the rules, regulations, orders made thereunder. In the face of such 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 (though in another context) 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.21. The other remaining question would be whether G.N. Verma could be deemed to be an Agent of the mine.22. 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. 23. 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. [Section 2. Definitions (j) "mine" means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on, and includes-(i) all borings, bore holes, oil wells and accessory crude conditioning plants, including the pipe conveying mineral oil within the oilfields;(ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not;(iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of being driven;(iv) all open cast workings;(v) all conveyors or aerial ropeways provided for the bringing into or removal from a mine of minerals or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;(vi) all adits, levels, planes, machinery, works, railways, tramways and sidings in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine; (vii) all protective works being carried out in or adjacent to a mine;(viii) all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of a mine and under the same management and used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management;(ix) all power stations, transformer sub-stations, convertor stations, rectifier stations and accumulator storage stations for supplying electricity solely or mainly for the purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management;(x) any premises for the time being used for depositing sand or other material for use in a mine or for depositing refuse from a mine or in which any operations in connection with such sand, refuse or other material is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine;(xi) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on;] 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. 24. The law is well settled by a series of decisions beginning with the Constitution Bench decision in W.H. King v. Republic of India [(1952) SCR 418] that when a statute creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words of the section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court over the last more than sixty years.25. 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.Conclusion

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. Insofar as the criminal complaint is concerned, it does not contain any allegation against G.N. Verma. The only statement concerning him is that he was the Chief General Manager/deemed Agent of the mine and was exercising supervision, management and control of the mine and in that capacity was bound to see that all mining operations were conducted in accordance with the Act, the rules, regulations, orders made thereunder. In the face of such 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 (though in another context) 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.21. The other remaining question would be whether G.N. Verma could be deemed to be an Agent of the mine.22. 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 law is well settled by a series of decisions beginning with the Constitution Bench decision in W.H. King v. Republic of India [(1952) SCR 418] that when a statute creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words of the section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court over the last more than sixty years.25. 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.