Judgment S.N. Jha, J. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 20 petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding of G.R. No. 901 of 1980 arising out of Nirsa Police station case no. 16 dated 15.3.1980 against whom cognizance has been taken for an offence under Section 286, 337, 334 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 9 (B) of the Indian Explosives Act. (in short 'Explosives Act') 2. The main question that arises in this proceeding relates to the criminal liability of these petitioners who are the employees of the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd at Rajapur Colliery, Nirsa in the district of Dhanbad. (in short colliery). 3. An accident took place in the said Colliery at about 3.00 A.M. on 15.3.1980 resulting in the death of about 10 persons. At 5.00 A.M. station Diary No. 349 dated 15.3.1980 was recorded at Nirsa Police station On the statement of One Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, officer in charge to the effect that an explosion had taken place in the Nirsa Colliery in which several persons have been injured and there was apprehension of some persons having died, which information had been received from Inspector of Police who had come back after making enquiries, The Sub Inspector of police left the police station along with other police men for the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence Sub Inspector remained there for the whole day during which he inspected the place of occurrence, found four dead bodies, held inquest on them, prepared inquest report, examined certain witnesses and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. 4. On the statement of one Rampati Nania a formal first information report was drawn up and the Nirsa police station case No. 16 dated 15.3.1980 was registered. 5. After Completing the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and two others namely, Moti Lal Gandhi the Manager of the Colliery and Satya Narain Rai the Agent of the said Colliery. The learned Magistrate framed charge against all the petitioners including the Manager and the Agent of the said Colliery (who are not the petitioners) under the aforesaid Sections. 6. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. Naresh Chandra Das, is designated as Area General Manager of the Nirsa Area. Petitioner No.2, P.R. Sharma, is the Manager of Hazaribagh Colliery. Petitioner Nos. The learned Magistrate framed charge against all the petitioners including the Manager and the Agent of the said Colliery (who are not the petitioners) under the aforesaid Sections. 6. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. Naresh Chandra Das, is designated as Area General Manager of the Nirsa Area. Petitioner No.2, P.R. Sharma, is the Manager of Hazaribagh Colliery. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 19, namely, Madan Mohan Ghosh and Balram Pandey, are Assistant Managers. Petitioner no.5, Ashok Bohra is the Magazine Clerk. Petitioner no. 6 Bhartari Kewat is the Explosive Carrier Petitioner no. 15, K.M. Ganguli is the Sr. Overman Petitioners No. 3, 7 to 14, 16 to 18, 20, namely, Rajendra Prasad. A.S. Mukherjee, Bhairo Gope, R.P. Singh, D.K. Dutta, D.K, Mandal, Gopal Singh, Kala Chandra Sarkar, D.K. Ravidas, Ram Bachan Ram, A.P. Yadav, S.N. Mukherjee and Narain Sah respectively are the Mining Sardars cum shot Firers of the said Colliery 7. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad. Learned Senior Council appearing on behalf of these petitioners has submitted that no offence has been made out against these petitioners in view of Section 18 of the Indian Mines Act, (in short Mines Act) which provides that only the owner, manager and agent will be liable for any negligent act. It was further contended that neither the first information report nor the charge sheets disclose that what specific overtact has been committed by these petitioners. In order to appreciate the points raised on behalf of these petitioners I may very briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Mines Act. Section 72-C of the Mines Act, is punishable Section and it says that whoever contravenes any provision of this Act, or of any regulation, rule or byelaw or of any order made thereunder (other than an order made under sub-section [I-A] or sub-section (2) of sub-section (3) of Section 22) (or under sub-section [2] of Section 22A) shall be punished Section 18 of the Mines Act, deals with duties and responsibilities of owners agents and manager. It is relevant to quote sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 18 of the Mines Act, which reads as follows: "18. Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and manager. It is relevant to quote sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 18 of the Mines Act, which reads as follows: "18. Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and manager. (1) The owner and agent of every mine shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for taking such other steps as may be necessary for compliance with the provisions of this Act, and the regulations, rule, bye-laws and orders made there under. (2) The responsibility in respect of matters provided for in the rules made under Cls. (d), (e) and (p) of Sec. 58 shall be exclusively carried out be the owner or agent of the mine and by such person other than the manager whom the Owner or agent may appoint for securing compliance with the aforesaid provisions. (3) ………………………………………………………………" 8. Section 18 of the Mines Act, casts responsibilities on the owner, agent and manger of every mine for conducting the operation of a mine in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, and all the regulations. rule and bye-laws and of any orders made thereunder and Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Mines Act, fixes a constructive liability on the owner, agent and manager of the mine even for the offences not committed by them unless they prove that they had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of their power enforcing those provisions to prevent such contravention. If the contravention is by the owner he will be liable even apart from Section 18 (2), if the contravention is by the manager, he will be liable independently of this provision and if the contravention is by the agent, he will be liable apart from this provision but if any of these three is liable for the contravention apart from the provisions the other two will be constructively liable so that the expression "any person whosoever" cannot be taken to exclude the owner, agent and the manager. The manager or agent can escape his liability only if they prove that they had taken all reasonable means by publishing or doing their best. All their powers enforcing those provisions to prevent such contravel1tion and an additional defence, is thrown open by proviso to Sub-Section (2) 9. Mr. Prasad vehemently argued that petitioner no. The manager or agent can escape his liability only if they prove that they had taken all reasonable means by publishing or doing their best. All their powers enforcing those provisions to prevent such contravel1tion and an additional defence, is thrown open by proviso to Sub-Section (2) 9. Mr. Prasad vehemently argued that petitioner no. 1, Nirmal Chandra Das, is not the Manager or Agent of the said Colliery, though he is designated as General Manager of the Area. In his jurisdiction there are number of collieries and each Colliery is having a manager, who is responsible for any contravention of the Mines Act. In the impugned order it is mentioned that one Moti Lal Gandhi is the manager of the said Colliery and Satya Narain Rai was the Agent, therefore; according to the learned counsel, if at all any body is liable for the offence; it is the manager or the agent and not these petitioners. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions in the case of Kurban Hussain Mohamadalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, Sultman Rahiman Mulani & anr v State of Maharashtra and Ambolal D. Bhatt Vrs. The State of Gujarat. 10. In the instant case it has come in the case diary that the accident took place at Raja Colliery of Nirsa Area at 3.30 A.M. in the Lamp Room and from there it went to the Battery Room where the transformer was kept and from there it went to explosive Room. It has also come in the evidence that there was a room in which the explosive and detonators were used to be kept for the use of the colliery. It was contended that none of these petitioners were present at the time of accident nor they are any how connected with the said accident. 10. In the case of Kurban Hussain Mohamadalli Rangawalla V. State of Maharashtra (Supra) Their Lordships noticed the observation made in the case of Emperor V. Omkar Rampratap where Sir Lawrence Jenkins had to interpret S.304-A and observed as follows:- "To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent Act, of the accused, and that Act, must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause causans, it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non." Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether these petitioners on the acts of this case, can be held liable for any rash and negligent act, which caused such an unfortunate accident in which the lives of so many persons were lost. What Section 304-A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent Act, and this means that death must be direct and proximate result of the rash or negligent Act, of these petitioners. 12. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Suleman Rahiman Mulani and another Vrs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), where it was held that the requirements of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are that the death of any person must have been caused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent Act, of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. Therefore, there must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent Act, of the accused. In the instant case I find that there is no evidence to show that it was the rash or negligent Act, of these petitioners that caused the death of so many persons. In my opinion the ratio of these two cases govern the facts of the present case as well. 13. In the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt Vrs. The State of Gujarat it was held, "It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an Act, which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent Act, or that any such Act, was the proximate and efficient cause of the death." In the aforesaid case, the appellant was a chemist in charge of the Injection department of a Sanitax Chemical Industries Ltd. Baroda. He was charged alogwith 5 others under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code for rashly and negligently manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline which contained more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as a result of which 13 persons to whom it was administered, died. He was charged alogwith 5 others under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code for rashly and negligently manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline which contained more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as a result of which 13 persons to whom it was administered, died. Their Lordships after considering the facts and circumstances of the entire case came to the conclusion that mere non compliance with the provisions of the Drugs Rules as made under the Drugs Act, by a chemist of a chemical company for giving a batch number to every lot of bottles containing preparation of glucose in normal saline did not by itself make it an Act, of chemist cause causans of the death of the persons who were injected with those preparations and allowed appeal of the appellant and set aside his conviction and sentence. Relying on all these decisions it is clear that there must be nexus between the death and the rash and negligent Act, of the accused. 14. As I have already indicated above that the Mines Act, has cast responsibilities on the owner agent and manager of every mine for conducting the operating of a mine in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, and the rule and regulations made thereunder. It is an admitted position that now the owner is the Government of India after nationalisation of all the Coal Fields and the term 'Manager' (now, director, with effect from 31st May, 1984) has been defined in Section 17 of the Act, as follows: "Save as may be otherwise prescribed, every mine shall be under a sole manager who shall have the prescribed qualifications and the owner or agent of every mine shall appoint a person having such qualifications to be manager: Provided that the owner or agent may appoint himself as manager if he possesses the prescribed qualifications." It is, therefore, obvious that in case of any contravention either the owner or manager or agent shall be held liable for any contravention of the Mines Act, rules or regulations made thereunder. 15. In the instant case, from the impugned order of framing charge, it is apparent that one Moti Lal Gandhi was the manager and one Satya Narain Rai is the agent of the said Rajapur Colliery. 15. In the instant case, from the impugned order of framing charge, it is apparent that one Moti Lal Gandhi was the manager and one Satya Narain Rai is the agent of the said Rajapur Colliery. The learned Magistrate has framed charge against all these petitioners making them liable for remaining negligent in their duties and the magistrate has observed that if all of them would have been watchful and sincere in storing of the alleged explosives articles in huge quantity, this unfortunate Occurrence might have been averted. I may point out here that even if there had been some contravention in certain rules or regulations in storing huge quantity of explosives articles, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the death as a result of rash and negligent Act, on their part. In all the aforesaid cases mentioned above a principle has been laid down that the prosecution has to establish that the death was the result of rash and negligent Act, and that any such Act, was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. In that view of the matter find force in the submissions of the learned council for the petitioners that no offence has been made out against these petitioners in view of Section 18 of the Mines Act, which provides that only owner, manager arid agent will be held liable for any negligent act. I accordingly hold that none of the petitioners can be preceded against the offence in question and their prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the court. However, it is made clear that the proceeding will continue against Moti Lal Gandhi and Satya Narain Rai, who were manager and agent of the said Colliery at the relevant time against whom as well the charges have been framed. 16. In the result the application is also wed and the order of Shri R. Narain Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, dated 11.6.1983 in G.R. Case No. 901 of 1980 arising out of Nina P.S. Case No. 16 dated 15.3.1980 to the extent of taking cognizance against these 20 petitioners is quashed. Application allowed.