Judgment 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bihar against a judgment, dated the 15th February, 1960, of a Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamui, acquitting the three respondents under Secs. 67 and 74 (1) (a) of the Mines Act, 1952 . 2. There is a company known as Messrs Christian Mica Industries Limited and it owns a mica mine, being Burhia Pit No. 2, situate in Mouza Thakar Charka Pathal, within Jhajha police station of the District of Monghyr. Respondent Ramgopal Agarwala was one of the directors of the company and appointed by the Board of Directors of the Company as owner of the mine within the meaning of Sec. 76 of the Mines Act. Respondent Jogendra Math Ghosh was the Agent and respondent Ram Krishna Jha was the acting Manager of the company in charge of the management of the aforesaid mine on the relevant date. 3. At about mid-day, on the 7th December, 1958, which was a Sunday, and riot a working day, some workers had been employed in the mine and they were fixing up some timbers by making hitches in the walls of the mine. While they were so working, a mass of earth about 12 x 10 x 1 fell from the vertical side of the open working from a height of about 12 ft, killing instantaneously three persons, Budhan Gope, Haro Kumar and Sudhani Mian, who were working in the mine at the time. It was alleged by the prosecution that the working of the mine by employing labourers on a Sunday was in contravention of Sec. 28 of the Mines Act, read with R. 47(1) of the Mines Rules, 1955, and that their employment on a holiday was not necessitated by any emergency as provided in Sec. 38 of the Act. The further allegation of the prosecution was that the mine had not been kept in proper order for the purposes of working as required under the rules of the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations; 1926. It was not, as required under R. 38 of the aforesaid Regulations, kept slopped, stepped or secured in a manner so as to prevent any danger from fall of any material; and this was a wilful or negligent omission on the part of the management in contravention of R. 91 of the Regulations. It was not, as required under R. 38 of the aforesaid Regulations, kept slopped, stepped or secured in a manner so as to prevent any danger from fall of any material; and this was a wilful or negligent omission on the part of the management in contravention of R. 91 of the Regulations. The respondents were accordingly prosecuted on two counts; one was under Sec. 67 of the Mines Act (referred to hereafter as "the Act") for working on a holiday in contravention of Sec, 28 of the Act read with R. 47 (1) of the Mines Rules, and the other was under Sec. 74(1)(a) of the Act for working the mine in contravention of R. 38 read with R. 91 of the Regulations of 1926. 4. The respondents did not deny the prosecution allegation about the accident. As to their working on a Sunday in contravention of sec. 28 of the Act, they pleaded a justification that they were obliged as an emergency measure to work on a Sunday inasmuch as after the timbering work done on the 6th December, 1958, it appeared that the eastern side of the pit was about to fall. As for the mine not having been kept in accordance with R. 38 of the Regulations, nothing was said specifically either in the statement of the respondents recorded under Sec. 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, or in the written statements filed on their behalf. In paragraph 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of Jogendra Nath Ghosh and Ram Krishna Jha, it was only said that the respondents had taken necessary steps urgently for protecting the safety of the mine and that the charge of omission to do thing necessary was groundless. 5. In the written statement on behalf of respondent Ramgopal Agarwala, the position was admitted that he was the owner within the meaning of Sec. 76 of the Act in that he had been appointed by the Board of Directors to represent the mine for the purpose of carrying out the rules and regulations governing it. It was, however, said that he was not in the habit of taking any part in the management of the mine nor did he take any part in respect of the accident. It was, however, said that he was not in the habit of taking any part in the management of the mine nor did he take any part in respect of the accident. Having had the agent and the manager appointed, he had made all the financial and other provisions necessary to enable them to carry out their duties, and the offence was not committed with his knowledge, consent or connivance and exemption was thus claimed on his behalf within the meaning of the proviso to Sec. 18 of the Act. 6. The learned Magistrate acquitted all the three respondents on both the counts. This appeal is confined only to the charge under Sec. 74(1) of the Act and the acquittal on the other count under section 67 of the Act is not challenged. I need not, therefore, refer to the question of the mine having been worked on a Sunday. 7. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the mine was being worked in contravention of R. 38 read with R. 91 of the Regulations. 8. The Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1926, govern all mines except coal mines. R. 38 occurs under Chapter VI under the heading "Mine Workings", which is to the following effect : "38. The sides of open workings shall be sloped, stepped or secured in such a manner as to prevent danger from falls of material." Rule 91 is as follows : "91. No person shall negligently or wilfully do anything likely to endanger life or limb in the mine, or negligently or wilfully omit to do anything necessary for the safety of the mine or the persons employed therein." "Mine" is defined in Sec. 2 of the Act as "any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on, and includes.........". Section 74 of the Act so far as relevant is as follows : "74. Section 74 of the Act so far as relevant is as follows : "74. Contravention of law with dangerous results- (1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation, rule or bye-law or of any order made thereunder, shall be punishable - (a) If such contravention results in loss of life with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both; or x x x x x x x x x x x x" 9. It would appear that a mere contravention of any provision of the Act or any regulation or rule or bye-law or any order made thereunder, regardless of any intention in the matter of breaking any such rule or regulation, if it results in loss of life, is punishable as aforesaid. Thus the only question for determination in this case is whether there had been a violation of R. 38 read with R. 91 of the Regulations made under the Act 10. The Regional Inspector of Mines of Kodarma Inspection Region, Mr. M. Subramaniyam, who was examined as P. W. 1, deposed that after getting a report of the accident he had visited the mine on the 8th December, 1958. He clearly said-"I had not found the sides of the open working slopped, stepped or secured, as required under Regulation 38 of the Indian Metalliferous Mines Regulations. This is called open working as distinguished from underground working". His evidence was thus clear that it was an open working of the mine as different from underground working and that the sides had not been kept sloped, stepped or otherwise secured to prevent any danger from fall of any material. His evidence on the point was not challenged. As a matter of fact, no claim was made on behalf of the respondents that the mine was kept slopped, stepped or otherwise secured. It was, admittedly, a mine which had been worked in a vertical position. Thus, it is evident that the mine was not kept as required under R. 38 of the Regulations; and the inference is irresistible that omission to make the mine slopped, stepped or otherwise secured was a negligent act, if not wilful. It was, admittedly, a mine which had been worked in a vertical position. Thus, it is evident that the mine was not kept as required under R. 38 of the Regulations; and the inference is irresistible that omission to make the mine slopped, stepped or otherwise secured was a negligent act, if not wilful. This contravention of the provision of R. 38 read with R. 91 of the aforesaid Regulations made under the Mines Act, 1952 , clearly resulted in loss of three human lives who were working in the mine at the time of occurrence. The offence thus committed came clearly within the purview of Sec. 74(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Magistrate has indeed taken a perverse and most absurd view of the law in the matter. The learned Magistrate has himself found that the mine had not been kept slopped, stepped or otherwise secured, but by a curious process of reasoning he has come to the conclusion that the law was not violated. I had better quote his relevant findings in this regard from paragraph 10 of his judgment. Having quoted the provisions of Rr. 38 and 91 of We Regulations, he has observed : "In this respect Ext. 11 shows that the sides of the open east working Pit No. 2 were almost vertical. What to say of P. W. 1, even D. W. 3 Shri Rajendra Prasad, Mining Officer, Deoghar. . . admitted that there was no slope of the sides which were almost vertical. He also stated that had the sides been stepped, slopped or otherwise secured the accident could have been averted............ What we find in the Regulation 38, it is somehow either by slopping or by stepping or by otherwise securing the safety of the mine and thereby of workers which is the main motive of this Regular tion. No doubt there was no slopping or stepping but as I have discussed in the foregoing paragraph, steps had been taken by the accused. J. N. Ghosh and R. K. Jha to secure the safety of the mine by timbering for which hitches had been cut or were being cut. It was during this operation that the eastern wall to the extent of 10 x 8 x 1 collapsed. J. N. Ghosh and R. K. Jha to secure the safety of the mine by timbering for which hitches had been cut or were being cut. It was during this operation that the eastern wall to the extent of 10 x 8 x 1 collapsed. Absence of slopes might have been one of the reasons for this catastrophe but as P. W. 1 said the accident took place due to the loosening or the wall due to withering or it may have been due to cracks inside but mostly due to the fact that the wall was vertical. Thus the vertical wall was one of the forces along with others acting on that mass of earth which caused it to pass from a stable equilibrium to an unstable equilibrium. But whether this was a major force or other forces were greater than this is difficult to say. Some element of negligence does appear in this case but it is doubtful if the intention of the accused persons was to be so negligent as to cause the loss of three lives. Since the Management has to pay compensation to the families of the deceased, the Management which is a business firm would not dare take such risks. Hence it is doubtful if the accused can be clearly held guilty of contraventions, of Regulations. In spite of best safety measures, accidents do happen due to some unforeseen causes and it appears that probably the legislators had this aspect of accidents also in their mind and hence they inserted these inexplicable unforeseen causes as some act of God." 11. The learned Magistrate seems to have been lost in the cobweb which he created for himself. After finding that the mine was not slopped, stepped or otherwise secured, as has been admitted by the defences own witness D. W. 3, who clearly said that if the mine had been even otherwise secured, the accident would have been averted there was no scope for the teamed Magistrate to come to any other conclusion that the mine had been otherwise secured. In the "foregoing paragraph", the learned Magistrate did not find that the mine had been otherwise secured from before it was being worked out. In the "foregoing paragraph", the learned Magistrate did not find that the mine had been otherwise secured from before it was being worked out. In that paragraph, he only found that working on a Sunday was taken recourse to as a measure of emergency because the mine was about to collapse, when the said timbering was being done. If the timbering was being done by making hitches in the walls as a measure of safety of the mine, it was being done rather late. The mine should not have been worked out without having had it made a slopped or stepped or otherwise secured from before. If the mine became dangerous for working after had been worked for some time, it will be no justification to plead that timbering was being done for the purpose of making the mine safe. Thus, the act of fixing timbers in the mine on the date of the occurrence could be no justification to say that the mine was being worked for making it safe. It was already unsafe, the sides having not been stepped or slopped or otherwise secured, and any attempt to make it safe on the date of the accident is no justification whatsoever. 12. Again, after finding that there was some element of negligence on the part of the respondents in not keeping the mine in proper order, the learned Magistrate fell into grievous error to give the respondents benefit of the doubt on the ground of intention when he said "but it is doubtful if the intention of the accused persons was to be so negligent as to cause the loss of three lives." The offence, as it has already been mentioned, does not depend upon intention; but it depends upon wilful or negligent omission in the observance of the mining rules. If on account of such negligence any accident takes place resulting in loss of human lives, the offence charged with is complete. The accident in question was not an act of God, but it was the result of negligence on the part of the management in non-observance of the mining rules. 13. If on account of such negligence any accident takes place resulting in loss of human lives, the offence charged with is complete. The accident in question was not an act of God, but it was the result of negligence on the part of the management in non-observance of the mining rules. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, drawn my attention to the evidence of P. W. 1 who said in answer to a court question : "The accident took place due to the loosening of the wall due to withering or it may have been due to cracks inside but mostly due to the fact that the wall was vertical and too high i.e., about 30ft, Had it been sloping it would have only slided." Learned counsel has contended on this evidence that the accident was more contributed to by the looseness or cracks in the wall than by the mine being in a vertical position, and the absence of any slope or step was not the major cause of it. But this contention has absolutely no force. It is to prevent any. fall of loose or cracked earth in the wall of a mine that the rule requires that it should be slopped or stepped or otherwise secured, and it should not be worked in a vertical position as this mine was being worked. P. W. 1 said in his evidence that had the mine been slopping, it would have only slided. The respondents could hardly plead any justification for working the mine in the condition, it was. 14. The Agent, Jogendra Nath Ghosh, and the Manager, Ram Krishna Jha, cannot escape the responsibility for having permitted the mine to be worked in the aforesaid condition, resulting in the loss of three human lives. 15. On behalf of the owner-respondent, Ramgopal Agrawala, an exemption from the responsibility is claimed in view of the proviso to sec. 18 of the Act. Sec. 18 is to the following effect : "18. Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. - (1) The owner, agent and manager of every mine shall be responsible that all operations carried on in connection therewith are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations, rules and bye-laws and of any orders made thereunder. Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. - (1) The owner, agent and manager of every mine shall be responsible that all operations carried on in connection therewith are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations, rules and bye-laws and of any orders made thereunder. (2) In the event of any contravention of any such provisions by any person whosoever, the owner, agent and manager of the mine shall each be deemed also to be guilty of such contravention "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means, by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions, to prevent such contravention : Provided that the owner or agent shall not be so deemed if he proves- (a) that he was not in the habit of taking and did not in respect of the matter in question take, any part in the management of the mine; and (b) that he had made all the financial and other provisions necessary to enable the manager to carry out his duties; and (c) that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance. (3) Save as hereinbefore provided, it shall not be a defence in any proceedings brought against an owner or agent of a mine under this section that a manager of the mine has been appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The owner-respondent Agarwala, in his examination under Sec. 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in his written statement, claimed that he was not in the habit of taking and did not take any part in the management of that mine or any other mine in Charka Pathal Zone. It was further said that he had made all the financial and other provisions necessary to enable the manager to carry out his duties and that the alleged offence was without his knowledge, consent or connivance, and that he was not even present on the date of occurrence, rather he had not visited Charka Pathal area for more than a year prior to the occurrence. Harikant Mishra, who was examined as D. W. 1, also, said that he was the Zonal Manager under the company and that Ramgopal Agarwala did not take any active part in the management of the mines of the Gama Zone under which the mine in question situates. Harikant Mishra, who was examined as D. W. 1, also, said that he was the Zonal Manager under the company and that Ramgopal Agarwala did not take any active part in the management of the mines of the Gama Zone under which the mine in question situates. He further said that Ramgopal Agarwala played no part in the indent or supply of the materials and that he was not present in December 1958. He further added that to his knowledge Sri Agarwala did not visit Charka Pathal for about a year before 1958 and that on the date of occurrence he was not there or at Tisri or at Domchanch. He added that the Board of Directors entrusted him with finance and stores for day to day work of the mines in the zone under his charge. This defence may or may not be true. It is possible that it was just set up as an excuse; but against this assertion made on behalf of the owner, the prosecution led no evidence to show that Sri Agarwala had been seen any time taking any part in the management of the mine and that he had not made all the financial and other provisions necessary to enable the manager to carry out his duties. The onus is, undoubtedly, on the owner to prove his non-participation in the management of the mine after having made all the arrangements for finance and other provisions to enable the Manager to carry out his duties, but the evidence in this case adduced on behalf of the owner is one-sided and was practically unchallenged. The only witness examined on behalf of the Prosecution, Mr. Subramaniyam (P. W. 1), who held enquiry into the cause of the accident, was not sure, if Sri Agarwala was present on the date of the accident at the spot nor did he enquire, if he had made all financial and other arrangements to enable the Manager to carry out the work, and did not himself take active part in the management. In this view of the matter, the defence of Ramgopal Agarwala must have to be accepted. He cannot, therefore, be made liable for the offence. Accordingly, his acquittal was justified; but the acquittal of the other two respondents, the Agent and the Manager, was not at all justified. In this view of the matter, the defence of Ramgopal Agarwala must have to be accepted. He cannot, therefore, be made liable for the offence. Accordingly, his acquittal was justified; but the acquittal of the other two respondents, the Agent and the Manager, was not at all justified. The judgment of the learned magistrate so far as they are concerned is perverse. They are both found guilty and convicted of the charge. 16 As regards the sentence, a serious view must be taken regard being had to the fact that the mine was being worked out in a vertical position, endangering the lives of the workers. This negligence caused the loss of three valuable human lives, and for this the responsibility is entirely of the Agent and the Manager. They had no justification to plead, whatsoever, why they allowed the mine to be worked in utter disregard of the mining rules and regulations. It is necessary that they should be awarded deterrent punishment so that men in their position must learn to work their mines in accordance with, and not in complete disregard to the mining rules. The two respondents, Jogendra Nath Ghosh and Ram Krishna Jha, are sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one month each. The fine, if and when realised, shall be paid in equal proportion to the legal heirs of the three deceased, namely, Budhan Gope, Kara Kumar and Sobhani Mian. 17. The order of acquittal against respondents Jogendra Nath Ghosh and Ram Krishna Jha is set aside and they are convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Thus, the appeal as against them is allowed; but as against Ramgopal Agarwala, however, it is dismissed, and he is discharged from his bail-bond. Appeal partly allowed.