UNION OF INDIA versus SH. AB. SHAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 09-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SH. AB. SHAH AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 1996 
B 
[B.L. HANSARIA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Mines Act, 1952-Sections 73, 79, Explanation (a)-Coal Mines 
Regulations 1957-Regulation No. 100( 1)-Conditions imposed for depil/ar-
ing-To be obeyed always-Othenvise a continuing offence-Held, action in-
C itiated subsequently is not bmTed by limitation. 
Words and Phrase~"At any time"-Explained as "at any point of time". 
The Respondent-Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. through their agent obtained 
permission from the D.G., Mines Safety on 2.1.1971 to split pillars in 
D conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seam in the area. The 
conditions 5 & 6 imposed for the same were modified on 14.6.1971, at the 
instance of the agent. The Coal Mines was taken over by the Central 
Government and vested in the Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973. On an 
inspection by the Dy. Director of Mines on 2.4.1974, certain violations were 
E found and the agent was called upon to explain the violation. Though a 
reply was received from the agent, no explanation was received from 
Respondent No. 1 On a further inspection on 26.8.1975 the Dy. Director 
found that the violation was continuing. As the concerned persons had 
not compiled with the conditions subject to which the splitting of pillars 
in conjunction with hydraulic sand §towing was granted, the Inspector filed 
F a complaint in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, alleging 
contravention of the conditions of permission. Respondents 1 to 4 raised 
two preliminary objections viz., that the complaint was barred by limita-
tion prescribed under Section 79 of the Act and that in any case respondent 
Nos. 1 to 4 were not in management of the coal mines in question when the 
G alleged offence was alleged to have been committed and therefore they 
could not be criminally proceeded with. The trial court accepted the 
contentions and acquitted Respondents 1 to 4. 
On appeal, the High Court confirmed the acquittal accepting the 
same contentions. The High Court held that the breach of any of the 
H conditions imposed for depillaring by itself is not punishable since the 
620 
)-
• 
U.O.L "·AB. SHAH 
621 
grant of permission on 2.l.1971'was not an "order" made under the Act of A 
1952, that stowing with sand is intended as an integral part of the opera-
tion of splitting pillars and that the words "at any time" contained in 
Condition No. 6 necessarily imply during the operation of the splitting and 
therefore the ofi'ence is not a continuing one as it is completed as soon as 
splitting or depillaring is. commenced or conducted or carried out in 
breach of any of the conditions on which permission to depillar was 
granted. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by Appellant that the trial 
court as well as the High court grossly erred in not accepting the conten-
B 
tion that the offence committed by the Respondents being continuing,in C 
nature falling under explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952, 
the complaint was not barred by time, that the High Court having rightly 
noted that out of lll conditions non-compliance of condition Nos. 3 and 6 
would fall under "continuing offence", fell into error in holding that all the 
conditions must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively, and that if 
the offence is a "continuing offence" falling under Explanation (a) to D 
Section 79 of the Act then notwithstanding the fact that Respondents No. 
1 to 4 were not in office when the offence was first detected, they are 
answerable to the charges levelled against them. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. The conditions 3 & 6 imposed for depillaring are not only 
relatable but the unstowing required for the length must exist always, 
disobedience of which shall become 
11continuing offence". So even if other 
conditions are held to be falling under completed offence, violation of 
condition Nos. 3 & 6 cannot be so treated as to invoke the time limit F 
prescribed under Section 79 of the Mines Act 1952. The charge framed is 
not barred by limitation. In view of the above conclusion, the plea taken 
by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that they were not the concerned officers when 
the offence was detected, will not hold water. The preliminary objections 
raised by them cannot be sustained. [630-A-C) 
G 
State of Bihar v. Dev Karan, AIR (1973) SC 908, relied on. 
2. The conditions 3 and 6 are not only relatable to what was required 
at the commencement of depillaring pro

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