BANWARILAL AGARWALLA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 10-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, S.K. DAS, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' • 
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
33 
d 99 
z96r 
We, therefore, allow the Appeals Nos. 98 an 
, 
__ 
set aside the orders of the High Court in Writ Peti- Chief Insp"tor of 
tions Nos. 475 and 476 of 1956 and order that these 
Mines 
writ petitions be rejected. Appeals Nos. 103 and 104 
v. 
Lala Karam 
are dismissed_ 
Chand Thapar 
Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 allowed. 
Das Gupta J. 
Appeals Nos. 100 to 106 dismissed. 
' 
BANW ARILAL AGARW ALLA 
v. 
February zo. 
• 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
• 
• 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Coal Mines-Colliery company-Contravention of coal mines 
regulations-Prosecution of directors of private company-Legality 
-Regulations not referred to Mining Board-Effect-Coal Mines 
Regulations, r957-Mines Act. r923 (4 of r923), s. Io-Mines Act, 
r952 (35 of r952), ss. 59(3), 76-Constitution of India, Art. I4 . 
Section 76 of the Mines Act, r952, provides that where the 
owner of a mine is a private company any one of the shareholders 
thereof may be prosecuted and punished nnder this Act for any 
offence for which the owner of the mine is punishable. The 
appellant who was a shareholder and a director of a private 
company owning a colliery, was prosecuted for an offence under 
s. 74 of the Act for contravention of Regulations ro7 and r27 of 
the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. He challenged the validity 
of the prosecutio\l on the grounds (r) that s. 76 of the Act in pur-
suance of which he who was not himself the owner of the colliery 
but only one of the directors and shareholders had been prosecut-
ed, was void as it violated Art. r4 of the Constitution of India, 
and (2) that the Coal Mines Regulations, r957, were invalid as 
they had been framed in contravention of s. 59 (3) of the Act, 
inasmuch as there was no consultation with a Mining Board 
before they were published as required by that sub-section. It 
was not disputed that when the Regulations were framed, no 
Mining Board as required under s. I2 of the Act had been con-
~ stituted, and so there had been no reference to any such Board, 
5 
Banwarilal 
Agarwalla 
v. 
State of Biliar 
Das Gupta J. 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
but it was alleged that there was consultation with the Mining 
Board constituted under s. ro of the Mines Act, r923. 
Held: 
(r) that the words "any one" ins. 76 of the Mines 
Act, r952, should be interpreted as "every one" and that under 
that section every one of the shareholders of a private company 
owning the mine was liable to prosecution. 
Accordingly, s. 76 did not' contravene Art. r4 of the Con-
stitution. 
Chief Inspector of Mines v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar, 
[r962] r S. C. R. 9, followed. 
(2) that compliance with the provisions in s. 59 (3) of the 
Act was mandatory. 
State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [r958] S. C. R. 
533, distinguished. 
Quaere, whether consultation with the Mining Boards con-
stituted under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1923, would be 
sufficient compliance with s. 59 (3) of the Mines Act, 1952. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 131 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 21, 1958, of the Patna High 
Court in M. J. C. No. 805 of 1958. 
G. S. Pathak, S. C. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, 
for the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R.H. Dhebar, for the respon-
dents. 
• 
1961. February 10. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAS GUPTA, J.-On February 20, 1958, there occur-
red in the Central Bhowra Colliery, in Dhanbad in 
Bihar an accident as a result of which 23 persons los.t 
their lives. After an inquiry under s. 24 of the Mines 
Act, 1952, into the causes of and the circumstances 
attending the accident, and the publication of the 
report of the inquiry, a complaint was prepared by 
the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, under the 
direction of the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, 
before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, against 
the appellant for an offence under s. 74 of the Mines 
Act, 1952, for contravention of regulations 107 and 127 , 
of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The Central 
• 
' 
• 
• 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
35 
Bhowra Colliery belongs, and belonged at the relevant 
date to a private company, viz., M/s. Central Bhowra 
Colliery Co., Private Limited. The appellant is and 
was a shareholder and a director of this company. 
After the Sub-Divisional Officer took cognizance of 
the compla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.