Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 12 April, 2022
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 328 of 2006
Sukhdeo Yadav ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
--------
06/ 12.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing this application only for petitioner No.2-Sukhdeo Yadav as the instant criminal revision application has been dismissed against the petitioner No.1-Narayan Mahato vide order dated 11.04.2022.
3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2006, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-IInd, Bokaro, in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2004 / 96 of 2004; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 29.09.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.M.A. Case No.1 of 1997, whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 72 (A) and 72 (C)(1)(a) of the Mines Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 72 (A) and S.I for two years under Section 72 (C)(1) (a) of the Mines Act, has been sustained.
4. The brief fact of the case as per prosecution report ext. 4 filed by the state represented by inspector of mines who is designated as Dy. Director Mines, namely, Chandra Bhanu Prasad is 2 that in February'1996 Santosh Kumar Agarwal (Manager), Narendra Kumar Singh (Agent), Nand Dulal Chatterjee and Sukhdeo Yadav (Overmans), Narayan Mahto and Dhananjay Shekhar (Sirdars) were posted at Amalabad Mines, which is a third degree gaseous mines. In the intervening night of 4th and 5th February'1996 in the third shifts, there was casualty inside the mines in cross cut level development face beyond third connection in south west sections of no.15 seam through no.1 and 2 pits of north Amlabad project and two persons namely Prem Nath (Overman) and Kurban Mian (Mining Sirdar) lost their life due to leakage of methane gas and deficiency of oxygen. The accident came to knowledge to the mines inspector on 5.2.96. Accordingly, the accident was inquired by an inquiry team and it was found that the accused persons have violated provisions of Regulation 130 (1) read with Reg. 41(1) (a), 41 (1) (1) (a), Reg. 43 (6), 142 (3), 44(6)
(a), 142 (3) of Coal Mines Regulation 1957 and Section 18(5) of the Mines Act and the contravention of above regulations and act is punishable u/s. 72 (a), 72/C (1) (a) of the Mines Act.
As per this report the case was registered in the court of Ld. CJM, Bokaro u/s 72/a, 72/c (10 (a) of the Mines Act. Substance of accusation were explained to the accused to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that 3 both the deceased were having full knowledge that they should not go inside the gaseous mines without wearing preventive kits.
He further draws attention of this Court towards Exhibit- 1 which is the enquiry report which clearly transpires that had the Over man (deceased) not failed to ensure that his accompanying subordinate official (Sirdar) carried inspection of the working place where work had been temporarily stopped due to an idle day (Sunday) with a flame safety lamp in accordance with relevant regulation to ascertain conditions thereof as regard to the ventilation and presence of methane gas there at or had he himself not failed to test for methane gas carefully in order to examine his working place in his inspection made before entering into that place as was required under him, the cause of action would have been averted.
6. He further submits that the place of occurrence was 3rd degree gaseous mines where it is presumed for any of the employee, what to say about the deceased Sirdar and Overman, that in that place nobody should go without wearing any preventive kits. He contended that even the trial court has admitted this fact, however sentenced this petitioner.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner is now an aged person of about 70 years old and he also remained in custody for about 14 days and sending him back to custody will ruin the entire family. Moreover, even assuming but not admitting that the petitioner was negligent but the degree of negligence does not warrant sentence. 4
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the punishment for the offence and submits that he can be punished only for fine and the maximum fine is Rs.5000/-. He concluded his argument by submitting that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside or at least the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
9. Learned APP supported the impugned judgment, however, submits that the same can be modified in lieu of fine.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower court record, it appears that the learned trial court has discussed the evidence in detail and has come to specific finding that this petitioner was negligent; however, the deceased were also negligent.
After going through the enquiry report (exhibit-1) it clearly transpires that had the deceased followed the mandatory regulations to enter into the 3rd degree gaseous mines wearing preventive kits; the accident could have been avoided. However, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not negligent but this Court has to see what the degree of negligence for warranting a sentence is.
11. Having regard to the facts of the case and after going through the LCR, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial court; as such the judgment of conviction 5 imposed by the learned trial court, is, hereby sustained.
On the question of sentence; in view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the negligence of this petitioner is not to that extent that sentence is warranted, as such the sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be sentenced for the period already undergone, subject to the fine of Rs.5,000/-.
12. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.
13. With the aforesaid observation, direction and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
14. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/