Judgment 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 72-A of the Mines Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXV of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While the trial court had sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, the lower appellate court while upholding the conviction has reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 500.00 only, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 72-A of the Act for non-compliance with an order issued under regulation 105(4) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). These regulations were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 57 of the Act. The order in question is issued under regulation 105(4) of the Regulations passed by the Director General of Mines Safety of India under a letter dated the 22nd of September, 1967. The petitioner was at the relevant time the owner of Khas Katrasgarh Colliery in the district of Dhanbad. The Director General of Mines Safety having been informed that the stability of the District Board road and surface buildings had been endangered due to the mining operations carried on by the petitioner, by the aforesaid letter directed the petitioner to pack solid all the galleries in Seam No. 7 (now called Seam No. 4) beneath and Within 15 metres of the District Board road and the Bustee where the depth of hard superincumbent strata was less than 15 metres. The petitioner was further directed to comply with the aforesaid order within three months from the date of issue of that letter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the fact that such an order was passed and was duly communicated to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid direction and that the Director General of Mines Safety also exercises the powers of the Chief Inspector under the Regulations. The only points that were raised in support of this petition are these. It is also not disputed that the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid direction and that the Director General of Mines Safety also exercises the powers of the Chief Inspector under the Regulations. The only points that were raised in support of this petition are these. Firstly, that the seam in question having already been worked before the regulations were framed in 1957, regulation 105(4) could not cover a case where the Director General of Mines Safety could issue an order under that regulation directing the petitioner to fill up the seams which had already been worked up before the coming into force of the Regulations when no mining operations were still being carried on in the seam in question. The second point urged by learned counsel was that it being admitted that the Deputy Director of Mines Safety, S.C. Batra (P.W. 2) visited the colliery on the 26th of July, 1968 and found that no packing of the galleries in the seam had been done as per the aforesaid direction, the cognizance of the offence, if any, was barred by Section 79 of the Act, the complaint having been filed more than six months later. 4. I shall first take up the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner. Section 79 of the Act runs in these terms : "79. Limitation of prosecutions. - No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof has been made - (i) within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or (ii) within six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, or (iii) in any case where a Court of Inquiry has been appointed by the Central Government under Sec.24, within six months after the date of the publication of the report referred to in Sub-Section (4) of that section, whichever is later. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section - (a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues; (b) where for the performance of any act time has been extended under this Act, the period of limitation shall be computed from the expiry of the extended period." The contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner must be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, if at all it is an offence, it is a continuing offence and by virtue of explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Act the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues. So long, therefore, as the directions contained in the order of the Director General of Mines Safety were not complied with, the offence was a continuing one, and the period of six months will have to be computed with reference to every point of time during the continuance of such offence. Secondly, Section 79(ii) of the Act lays down the period of limitation as six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. This is a mixed question of fact and law. The point not having been raised in either of the two courts below nor there being any material on record to persuade me to hold that the knowledge of the Inspector was beyond six months of the institution of the complaint, the point of limitation cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage involving as it does facts not canvassed before the courts of fact. The argument with regard to the limitation of prosecution cannot, therefore, in my view, be accepted. 5. Adverting to the first point, all that has to be seen is as to Whether the language of regulation 105(4) is such as precludes the Chief Inspector or the Director General of Mines Safety, Government of India from passing any order for packing with solid material such seams which have already been worked and are likely to endanger the stability of railway, road, works, building or structure. It is worthwhile to quote regulation 105 in extenso : "105. Workings under railways and roads etc. It is worthwhile to quote regulation 105 in extenso : "105. Workings under railways and roads etc. - (1) No workings shall be made and no work of extraction or reduction of pillars shall be conducted at, or extended to, any point within 45 metres of any railway, or of any public works in respect of which this regulation is applicable by reason of any general or special order of the Central Government, or of any public road or building or of other permanent structure not belonging to the owner of the mine, without the prior permission in writing of the Chief Inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein. (2) Every application for permission under sub-regulation (1) shall specify the position of the workings of the mine in relation to the railway or public road or works or building or structure concerned, the manner in which it is proposed to carry out the intended operations, and the limits to which it is proposed to carry out the said operations; and shall be accompanied by two copies of a plan showing the existing and the intended mining operations in so far as they affect the railway or public road or works or building or structure concerned. A copy of the application shall also be sent in the case of a railway, to the railway administration concerned; and in the case of any public works as aforesaid, to such authority as the Central Government may by general or special order direct. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the regulations, the stability of such railway, road, works, building or structure shall not be endangered until it has been dismantled, diverted or vacated, as the case may be. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the regulations, the stability of such railway, road, works, building or structure shall not be endangered until it has been dismantled, diverted or vacated, as the case may be. (4) Where the stability of such railway, road, works, building or structure has been endangered due to any mining operations, the Chief Inspector may by order in writing require the owner to construct in the mine below ground or on the surface such protective works within such time as he may specify in the order." It will be seen from the language of regulation 105(1) that in future workings of a mine no work of extraction shall be conducted at, or extended to, any point within 45 metres of any railway, public works except with the prior permission in writing of the Chief Inspector and subject to such conditions as may be specified by him. Regulation 105(2) again reinforces such prohibitions as are contained in sub-regulation (1) by prescribing the necessary particulars to be furnished in every application for permission under Sub-regulation (1). Sub-regulations (1) and (2), therefore speak of mining operations or works of extractions to be conducted in the future whereby any railway, public works, public road or building may be endangered. And for the purpose of carrying on such operations in the future prior sanction of the appropriate authority has been made imperative. Sub-regulation (3), however, generally prescribes that the stability of such railway, road, works, building or structure shall not be endangered until it has been dismantled, diverted or vacated. Where, therefore, future operations are sought to be affected, prior permission of the appropriate authority is a must. Then comes sub-regulation (4) which contemplates that on account of mining operations having already been conducted or done so as to adversely affect the stability of any such railway, road, works, building or structure, then the owner may be compelled by the appropriate authority so to construct in the mine underground or on the surface such protective works within the time specified as may ensure the stability of such railway, road, building, structure etc. Sub-regulation (4), therefore, cannot be so construed as to cover only such cases where mining operations are yet to be undertaken. Sub-regulation (4), therefore, cannot be so construed as to cover only such cases where mining operations are yet to be undertaken. On the contrary, in my view, regulation 105(4) clearly contemplates such contingency where on account of mining operations having already been conducted, even before the coming into force of the regulations the need for doing such acts as may ensure the stability of such works is felt imminent. If as learned counsel for the petitioner has argued sub-regulation (4) were to apply only to cases where mining operations were to be conducted in the future, then this entire sub-regulation will become wholly redundant, for such cases are already covered by sub-regulation (1) of regulation 105. There is thus no substance in either of the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In the result, therefore, I see no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. The rule is discharged.