JUDGMENT 1. - This case is having a chequred history by filing the revision petitions under section 401 Cr. PC and also invoking the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The case is pending before the trial court since 1975. Initially, against the orders of this Court a S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court which has been decided by the Supreme Court on 17th January 1980. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed that the issue of the process by the Magistrate cannot be questioned. However their Lordships further directed that the process may be issued against Shri P.L. Roy who is said to be the actual offender. During the trial one application after another was filed to put embargo on the trial. The petitioner moved two applications, namely dated 4-2-1982 and the other dated 13th July 1983 before the trial court and submitted that the trial court could not be proceeded against any of the accused and further it was submitted that Mr. R.C. Bahree the present petitioner cannot be tired as he was neither a Manager nor the owner and he was also not the agent. Both the applications were disposed of by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 20th October 1984 and this revision petition has been filed against the said order before this Court on 27th November 1984. My brother Hon'ble Justice Sharma, directed that this case be disposed of at this stage vide his order dated 20-3-85. 2. A complaint was filed on 30th May 1985, by Shri M.L. Mukherjee, Joint Director, Mines Safety, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, under the provisions of Section 72(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952. In para 4 of the said complaint it has ben specifically mentioned that the present petitioner was the Dy. General Manager at the relevant time when the offence was committed. It was also submitted that the accused No. 2 was the officially appointed Agent. Accused No. 3 was the Manager and accused No. 4 was the acting Manager acting as a Manager during the absence on leave of the permanent Manager, Shri Arora. Accused No. 5 was the Mine Engineer, incharge of its mechinery etc. on 1st February 1975 at about 3-30 P.M., four workers came to the Zero Level landing where the West side cage in the service Bhaft was lying suspended. Accused No. 5 was the Mine Engineer, incharge of its mechinery etc. on 1st February 1975 at about 3-30 P.M., four workers came to the Zero Level landing where the West side cage in the service Bhaft was lying suspended. The cage instead of going up began goind down and ultimately went down the sump, provided below the Zero Level landings. It was about 18 metres deep and which contained water upto the level of about 13 metres from its bottom. The three workers out of the 4 could not come out and were drowned. 3. The inquiry was conducted by the department and the details of the result have been given in the complaint. The learned Magistrate rejected both the applications and directed that the case may be proceeded. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20th October 1984, this revision petition has been filed by the accused No. 1 Shri R.C. Bahree, who claims to be Executive Director, Indian Copper Complex. 4. Mr. B.L. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case with all vehemence at his command and has submitted that the case cannot be proceeded against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the case should not also be proceeded against the other accused persons for the reasons mentioned in both the applications. 5. Section 72 of the Mines Act, 1952, relates to the obligation of persons employed in a mine. Section 18 provides about the duties and responsibilities of owners agents and managers. Section 75 provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or mannger for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector, Section 77 deals with the other relevant provisions to safeguard the interest of owner, agent or manager from liability in certain cases. It further provides that the owner, agent or manager of the mines as the case may be, may be examined on oath and his evidence and that of any witness whom he calls in support shall be subject to cross-examination by or on behalf of the person he alleges as the actual offender and by the prosecutor. In the instant case Mr. P.L. Roy has been summoned as a main accused. In the instant case Mr. P.L. Roy has been summoned as a main accused. It is not on record whether any application has been moved by Mr. Roy under Section 77(a) of the proviso for the examination of the present petitioner or any of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as he knows no such application has been moved. He further submits that he is not definite on this point and he cannot also rule out the possibility of the submission of such application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is having no knowledge of such application and cannot make any submission. The provisions of Article 20 will came into operation if at all, only when such contingency arises. At the present moment the petitioner cannot have any grievance with reference to the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution. He has not been submoned to appear as a witness or to face cross examination under section 77(a) of the proviso and as such, he can not make a complaint at this stage. The validity or the legality is not under challenge at this stage. However, I would like to observe that this matter can be heard at a proper stage by the proper court if the contingency arises. 6. Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the Dy. General Managers and in the complaint he has wrongly been shown as a Dy. General Manager. He further submits that the person petitioner is neither the agent not he owner. He further submits that the present petitioner cannot be considered as a Manager under the provisions of Sections 17 of the Act and the matters cannot be disposed of without recording the evidence of the person. Apart from that, the statement made in the complaint has to be taken at its face value for the purpose of consideration about the maintainability of the complaint. It will not be out of place to mention here that the present petitioner has shown his designation as Executive Director in his petition. The functions of the Executive Director generally are to execute the operation and to perform the mineral operations according to the provisions of law. It will not be out of place to mention here that the present petitioner has shown his designation as Executive Director in his petition. The functions of the Executive Director generally are to execute the operation and to perform the mineral operations according to the provisions of law. There may be same exceptions but, if there is any exception then the present petitioner will have a right to agitate it by producing the evidence in the Court to show that he is entitled for the benefits of the provisions of Section 77(1). He can say before the Court that he has used his due deligence to enforce the relevant provisions of the Act. He can so fulfil the personal consent or connivance. He can also prove that this was in the part of his duty, but every matter depends on the evidence itself and the court cannot take into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Sharma at this stage. It will not out of place to mention here that every person in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of his business is liable to be prosecuted. But, the question arises is whether the petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of his business, specially relations to the mines operation is a question which can be established or de-established by the evidence produced by both the parties. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me the case of Chief Inspector of Mines and Others v. Karam Chand Thaper Etc. AIR 1961 SC 833. It is an admitted position that the managing agent cannot be the owner of the Company and the owner cannot be the manging agent and, there cannot be dispute on this point. But, at the same time, the manager include General Manager, Dy. Manager, Assistant Manager or any person who Managers or is responsible to the Company for conduct of his business of operation and specially relating to the safely measure. But, at the same time, the manager include General Manager, Dy. Manager, Assistant Manager or any person who Managers or is responsible to the Company for conduct of his business of operation and specially relating to the safely measure. The General Manager cannot shift the burden on the Assistant Manager and vice-versa Assistant Manager on the General Manager, all of them are responsible to the Company for the proper conduct of the business and any person who is responsible for the proper conduct of the business and specially relating to the safely measure and operation of the mines is liable to be prosecuted for the violation of any of the provisions of this Act, In the case of Industrial Supply Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1858 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that on interpretation of the various terms of an agreement it was held that the raising contractors were in actual use and occupation of the coal mine; that the agreement was licence coupled with a grant and therefore, the raising contractors would be deemed to be "owner" within the meaning of S. 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act (1972) read with S. 2(1) of the Mines Act (1952). Their Lordships further held that in the legal sense, an occupier is a person in actual occupation. Where the raising contractors were, under the terms of agreement entitled to and in fact in actual physical possission and enjoyment of the colliery they would, therefore, be occupier thereof. They being in possession, in their own right, by virtue of the substantial rights acquired by them under the agreement, were not in possession on behalf of some body. Section 17 of the Act lays down that every mine shall be under the supervision of a Manager. It does not mean that there is no role of other who are also concerned directly with the functioning of the mine. Every person who is incharge of the business of the mine is liable for carrying out the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the Dy. General Manager can also be prosecuted and, it cannot be contended that only one Manager and [ none-else can be prosecuted as the offence was committed by a Company. If the Dy. General Manager is incharge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business he is equally liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the Dy. General Manager can also be prosecuted and, it cannot be contended that only one Manager and [ none-else can be prosecuted as the offence was committed by a Company. If the Dy. General Manager is incharge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business he is equally liable to be prosecuted. I do not agree with the submission of Mr. B.L. Sharma that only one Manager under Section 17 of the Act can be prosecuted and other persons who are managing the business of the Company and who are directly responsible to the Company for the performance of their duties, cannot be prosecuted. A restricted interpretation cannot be given to Section 17 of the Act. It provides for a vicarious liability of a Manager and, even if the Manager is not responsible to the Company for one reason or the other but, if the declaration has been given that he is in charge of the Company under the provisions of Section 17 he can also be prosecuted in addition to the persons who are responsible to the Company for the performance of due business of the Company Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act and submitted that the petitioner is not agent under sub-Section (c) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 2(c) provides that any individual, whether appointed as such or not, who acts as the representative of the owner in respect of the management, control and direction of the mine or of any part thereof, and as such superior to a manager under this Act can be said to be the 'agent'. It is not necessary that there can be one agent. Any person responsible for the management, any person responsible for the control and any person responsible for the direction may be the agent. In such circumstances, the agent may be more that one, but the question will be whether such person is superior to the Manager or not. For that purpose, the Court can consider after recording the evidence whether the petitioner is having the control of the management or having the power of issuing direction or not and whether the petitioner is superior to the Manager. For that purpose, the Court can consider after recording the evidence whether the petitioner is having the control of the management or having the power of issuing direction or not and whether the petitioner is superior to the Manager. The law has also provided the definition of the words "owner", which provides that any person who is the immediate proprietor or leasee or occupier of the mine or any part thereof and in the case of a mine the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver or so, may be the owner of the Company under this clause.Mr. Sharma pointed out that under Section 17 of the Act only one Manager can be appointed and restricted use should be taken. Mr. Sharma further submits that the owner can appoint the Manger and, as such, the concept of the one Manager is there. Section 17 defines Manager and Manager means a person possessing the prescribed qualification and appointed in writing by the owner or agent to be in charge of the mine under the Act and include the mine superintendent; if appointed under Section 17 of the Act, Thus, the owner cannot appoint himself. He is equally liable as a owner, he can perform the duties of the Manager because the owner can do any work in any way, if he so chooses, he continues to be the owner but, he cannot be said to be the servant of the owner. So, the submission of Mr. Sharma that the owner can appoint himself as manager is not correct. The position is that the owner can act as a manager of the Company and can manage, control and direct the business of the Company. But, he will continue to be the owner as the owner has the right to every act and he is superior to the manager in all respects. Apart from that Section 17 provides that the manager shall be appointed by the owner and is responsible to the company for the proper conduct of the business. 7. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition moved by the present petitioner is without force and the same is dismissed accordingly. The trial court should expedite the trial of this case and should see that the case is pending for the last ten years. 7. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition moved by the present petitioner is without force and the same is dismissed accordingly. The trial court should expedite the trial of this case and should see that the case is pending for the last ten years. He should therefore, try to decide the case within a period of three months. It will not be out of pace to mention here that Mr. Sharma pointed out after the dictation of this order that there was specific order of Hon'ble the Supreme court not to take account of the observations of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in it order has already held that the issue of process by the Magistrate cannot be questioned ss the process has rightly been issued against the present petitioner and the others. The Supreme Court has further held that the observations made by the other court shall bot be taken into consideration. No observations have been considered and, even if the Magistrate has taken into consideration, rightly or wrongly, if is not going to effect the decision of this revision petition and order of taking cognizance and also proceeding with the matter. 8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.Revision dismissed. *******