JUDGMENT 1. - Hagami Lal Patni, respondent No. 1, proprietor of M/s. Pavan Kumar Patni and Co., Nasirabad, was granted a prospecting licence for Mica Mines in village Junia, Tehsil Kokri, District Ajmer. Kalyan Mal respondent No. 2 was the Manager of the Mines from December 28, 1963. On July 26, 1964 Mining operations were goring on in Gora Bheru Pit Mahavir. Bhandar Mica Mines It was an open caste mine. In this Gora Bheru Pit an accident happened at 14.30 hours when the work was in progress with 17 workers in the presence of the Manager Kalyan Mal Nayak. The sides of the excavation were overhanging on the eastern side of the pit and lose debris were piled near the excavation. The sides of alluvial soil, mortum gravel, clay, and debris were not sloped at an angle of safety. The sides were also not kept benched at the height of 1.5 meter and of the same width. Due to the over hanging of the surface the eastern side of the pit collapsed as a result of which two workers, namely, Ram Chand Daroga and Nijam PW, 3 were buried underneath the material. They sustained injuries. Both of them were removed from the mines While they were bring taken to the hospital, Ram Chand expired on the way. The owner and the Manager of the mine failed to inform the Regional Inspector of the Mines in time. On July 27, 1964 the required information was received by the office of the Regional Inspector. The Assistant Regional Inspector and the Engineer of Mines, Ajmer,inspected the site. On inspection, both the officers found that the accused respondents had not complied with the regulation No. 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961. The sides of the mines were not kept benched as provided under the rules and they did not make an angle of not exceeding 45 degree. On complaint being made both the respondents were tried by the Sub- divisional Magistrate Kekri, who found them guilty of an offence punishable under section 72C (1) (a) and (b) of the Mines Act, 1952 and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively, under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 720(1) of the said Act. They were also convicted and sentenced under sections 67 and 70 of the Act and were sentenced to fine. 2. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively, under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 720(1) of the said Act. They were also convicted and sentenced under sections 67 and 70 of the Act and were sentenced to fine. 2. The appeal filed by the respondents was partly accepted. The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court under sections 67 and 70 of the Act were upheld whereas they were acquitted of the charge punishable under section 72-C(l) (a) and (b) and the sentence awarded to them under that section was also set aside vide order dated May 17, 1971. 3. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the complainant has come up in appeal before this Court. 4. We have perused the record. Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused respondents mainly on the ground that the Assistant Inspector of Mines and the Mining Engineer visited the mines after accident and their statements were presumptive. He has filed to consider the statement of P.W 3 Nijam, who is an injured person and was admittedly present in mines at the time of the accident. He categorically stated that eastern side of the pit was over-hanging and that a portion of it fell down causing injury to him and Ram Chand fhe statement of Nijam stands corroborated by Ex. P/7A and the statement of PW. 1 Ratanlal and PW. 2 Sundermal Bhandari. Learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the relevant evidence on record. Thus, he has misdirected himself and the conclusion arrived at by him is apparently wrong leading to mis-carriage of justice the case relied upon by the trial court State of Mysore v. P. C Sararangopani Mudaliar and Others AIR 1960 Mysore 245 is distinguishable on fact Accused of that case were sought to be convicted on the sole evidence of the expert, whereas in the instant case, there is direct evidence of an injured person whose presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement stands corroborated in material particulars as already noted above 5. We, therefore, accept this appeal filed by the complainant, set aside the order of acquittal of the respondents under section 72-C(1) a) and (b) of the Mines Act, 1952 and restore the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kekri A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.Appeal accepted. *******