JUDGMENT : R. P. Sinha, J. This is an application in revision by the petitioners, who are accused in a case, against the ORDER :passed by the Sessions Judge, Gaya on 28th August, 1972 setting aside the ORDER :of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Nawadah, dated 11th October. 1971. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application, in brief, are that on account of some accident in a Mica mine one labourer was killed. The Deputy Director of Mines, Safety, Kodarma, filed a complaint, as according to him, the accident had taken place on account of some irregularities in the maintenance of the mine. On the basis of the complaint cognizance was taken against the two petitioners and four others and the case was transferred to the Magistrate for trial. These two petitioners filed! a petition in the court of the learned Magistrate that they being receivers appointed by the court of the Subordinate Judge, Gaya, were not liable to be prosecuted until and unless leave of that court was obtained. The learned Magistrate by his ORDER :dated 11th October, 1971 held that these petitioners could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the court and hence he discharged them The complainant moved the Sessions Judge in revision against the aforesaid ORDER :of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have. therefore, come up in revision before this Court. 3. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of this application, is that the petitioners having been appointed receivers by court, they could not be proceeded against without the leave of the court appointing them as receivers. I may state at the very outset that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has frankly admitted that there is no rule or law that the leave of the court in case of receivers has to be obtained before receivers can be proceeded against or prosecuted for violation of any provision of any Act. However, a practice has grown since long that leave of the court which appoints a person as receiver should be obtained before he is to be proceeded against. 4. However, a practice has grown since long that leave of the court which appoints a person as receiver should be obtained before he is to be proceeded against. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision in the case of (1) Braja Bhusan Trigunait V. Sris Chandra Tewari (IV Patna Law Journal 20) but, in my opinion, this decision is of no help to the petitioners. That was an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed before this Court against an ORDER :of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum who had refused leave to the petitioners to sue a receiver who had been appointed by the court in an administrative suit between certain members of a family known as the Trigunait brothers. It was held in that case that grant of leave is made not in exercise of any power conferred by Statute but in exercise of the inherent power which every court possesses to prevent such acts which constitute• or are akin to an abuse of its authority. The application against the ORDER :of the Subordinate Judge refusing the leave was consequently allowed. Reliance has also been placed on a decision in the case of (2). Santok Chand V. Emperor (I.L.R. 46 Calcutta 432). There it was observed that a receiver appointed by the High Court, who has, under its ORDER :, taken possession of property, to wit, certain bales of Jute, cannot be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust in respect of the same without first obtaining the leave of the Court. Another decision which has been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of (3) Corporation of Calcutta V. Sudhamoy Bose (A. I. R. 1960 Calcutta 444). That was a case in which an appeal was filed by special leave by the Corporation of Calcutta. The respondent was acquitted by the Municipal Magistrate on the ground that no permission to prosecute the accused had been obtained from the court which had appointed him a receiver. The appeal was dismissed as it was held that permission of leave of the court was necessary. 5. As against the decisions referred to above, there is a decision in the case of (4) K. Shyamalabal Amal V. M. S. Ramamurthi (A. I. R. 1948 Madras 318) which was relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party. The appeal was dismissed as it was held that permission of leave of the court was necessary. 5. As against the decisions referred to above, there is a decision in the case of (4) K. Shyamalabal Amal V. M. S. Ramamurthi (A. I. R. 1948 Madras 318) which was relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party. It has been observed therein as follows : "Nowhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure is there any reference to leave of a Court being required before prosecuting a receiver. A receiver is not referred to in Section 195 of the Code which requires fulfillment of its provisions in respect of prosecution of certain individuals. In the absence of any authority, I would) have ventured to come to the conclusion, which I am expressing here, that when a receiver commits an offence in relation to property in his possession, then he can be prosecuted without leave being obtained from the Court by which he is appointed." Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioners along with others are being prosecuted for violation of the provisions of a special act. namely, the Mines Act, 1952 (Act 35 of 1952). Section 2 (1) (1) of the said Act reads as follows :- . "'Owner', when used in relation to a mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a mine the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such liquidator or receiver and in the case of a mine owned by a company, the business whereof is being carried on by a managing agent, such managing agent.” It was argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that in view of the definition as given above, these petitioners, being receivers, actually do come within the definition of owner and under Section 18(1) and (2) of the Act, 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 in the event of any contravention of such provisions by any person whosoever, the owner, agent and manager of the mine shall each be deemed to be guilty of such contravention unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable 'means to prevent. such contravention. ]n view of the definition of 'owner' as given above and the liabilities of the owner, agent and manager under Section 18(1) and (2) of the Act, it cannot be said that these petitioners ale not liable for the contravention of the provisions of the Mines Act. 6. The question is as to whether leave of the court in their case was or was not imperative being receivers appointed by, a court. On that point, in my opinion, the decision in the case of K. Shyamalambal Ammal (supra) is very clear. 7. For the reasons stated above, I do not think the ORDER :of the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate requires any interference by this Court. The application, therefore, fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.