G.N. VERMA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 06-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 623 
G.N. VERMA 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2004) 
MARCH 6, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
MINES-ACT, 1952: 
s. 72-B rlw s. 2(j) and 18(5) of 1952 Act and Regulation B-
A 
B 
c 
A of Coal Mines Regulations - Deemed Agent - Fatal 
accident in mine - Complaint - Liability of Chief General 
Manager referred to in the complaint as deemed Agent -
Held: Only a person who is authorised to act on behalf of the 
0 
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 the appellant to act or purport to act on 
his behalf, it cannot be said that he was a deemed Agent for 
the mine -- s.2(j) which defines 'mine' has no reference to any 
E 
administrative functions in relation to a mine but only 
technical matters related thereto - Appellant while performing 
administrative duties, cannot be assumed to have been 
involved in technical matters of mine -- Besides, the complaint 
does not state anywhere that appellant acted or purported to 
F 
act on behalf of owner of the mine or that he took part in the 
management, control, supe1Vision or direction of any mine 
and, therefore, no case for proceeding against him has been 
made out - Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in taking 
cognizance of complaint and issuing summons to appellant G 
- Complaint against appellant is quashed. 
A criminal complaint was filed against the appellant 
on 30.08.2004 on the allegation that in spite of the 
623 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 3 S.C.R. 
A prohibitory order, extraction of coal was carried out in the 
colliery concerned on or about 09-03-2000 resulting into 
a fatal accident. Consequent upon the enquiry report 
indicating violation of the prohibitory order, the Inspector 
of Mines filed Case no. 323 of 2000 before the Chief 
B Judicial Magistrate on 30-08-2000 against three accused, 
namely, the appellant, who was the Chief General 
Manager and described as deemed Agent of the colliery 
concerned, the Agent of the colliery and the Manager of 
the colliery, that they contravened the provisions of s. 72-
C B of the Mines Act, 1952. The Chief Judicial Magistrate 
took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons 
to the accused including the appellant. The appellant filed 
a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
seeking to quash the proceedings and the summons 
0 issued to him. The single Judge of the High Court referred 
the matter to the Division Bench which held that in view 
of the extended definition of Agent read with s. 18(5) of 
the Act, the Chief General Manager of a mine would be 
deemed Agent responsible for the management, control, 
E supervision or direction of a mine or a part thereof, and 
dismissed the petition. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 This Court has been consistently adopting 
F the view 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. [para 24] [635-G; 636-A] 
WH. King vs. Republic of India (1952) SCR 418 - relied 
G on. 
1.2 It is true that "Agent" has an extended meaning 
in the Mines Act, 1952. It not only brings within its fold a 
person who is appointed as an Agent in relation to a mine 
H but also a person not appointed as an Agent but who 
G.N. VERMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & A~~R. 
625 
acts or purports to act on behalf of the owner of the mine A 
and takes part in the management, control, supervision 
or direction of the mine or any part thereof. [para 17) [633-
C-D] 
1.3 Regulation 8-A of the Coal Mines Regulations 8 
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 C 
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 D 
indication having been given by the owner enabling the 
appellant to act or purport to act on his behalf, it cannot 
be said that he was a de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.