Binoy Kumar Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr

An unfortunate incident occurred in PK-1 Unit of Kusunda Colliery, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) on 05.01.1996 at about 06:40 AM when a gang of seventeen loaders was engaged in loading coal at Junction 9, East Level of Two Dip, Bottom Section. Combined Seam of the aforesaid unit of the Colliery, coal roof measuring about 7.6 m x 6.1 m x 0.20 m fell from a height of 2.8 m on the aforesaid seventeen loaders. This mishap resulted in the death of four persons and serious bodily injuries to five persons whereas remaining eight loaders escaped unhurt. On reporting of this accident, Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) (respondent No.2 herein) commenced inquiry/investigation on 06.01.1996 under Section 23(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Based on the inquiry report dated 12.02.1996 submitted by respondent No.2, a complaint was filed by him before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the following employees of Kusunda Colliery:

(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the owner, agent and manager of every mine shall each be responsible to see that all operations carried on in connection with the mine are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations, rules, bye-laws and orders made thereunder.

We may mention that the evidence which was led by the prosecution in support of its case qua all the accused persons is on the same lines on which liability is fastened on these persons in the aforesaid report. With these preliminary remarks, we advert to the case of each of the appellants.

With this we advert to the question of sentence that is given by the courts below to Binoy Kumar Mishra and Madhusudan Banerjee. It was argued by the learned counsel for these two appellants that having regard to certain extenuating factors, even if the conviction is maintained, they may be fastened with the sentence of fine only.

Insofar as Madhusudan Banerjee is concerned, no doubt, he was an ‘agent’ and, therefore, was directly responsible to ensure that safety measures are taken. However, we find that he retired from service 15 years ago. He is 75 years of age and is suffering from various ailments, including heart disease. He met with an accident in October 2016 and fractured his hip bone because of which he is confined to bed and cannot even go to toilet without help.

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances in respect of these two appellants, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by imposing the sentence of fine only.

Conviction under Section 72A of the Act entails maximum imprisonment of six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-, or with both. Likewise, Section 72C(1)(a) stipulates imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both. Section 72C(1)(b), likewise, prescribes maximum imprisonment of one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.3,000/-, or with both. The sentences imposed by the trial court are modified in respect of these two appellants by substituting the sentence of maximum fine prescribed under the aforesaid provisions, which would be Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.

In the result, appeals filed by Binoy Kumar Mishra (Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2017) and Madhusudan Banerjee (Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2017) are partly allowed to the extent of sentence only, as mentioned above. The appeals of Mahendra Prasad Gupta (Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2017) and Nageshwar Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2017) are allowed thereby setting aside their conviction and sentence.

No costs.

MARCH 31, 2017.