Judgment G.S.Chaube, J. 1. Crim. Misc. Nos. 4108/97R and 4050/97R have arisen out of the same case, being Katras P. S. Case No. 334/95. Therefore they have been heard together and this common judgment shall govern both of them. Petitioners in both the cases have sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dt. 17.12.96 taking cognizance of offences against them in the abovementioned case by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court vested under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts out of which these applications have arisen are that due to unprecedented heavy downpour from the evening of 26.9.95 in the district of Dhanbad, there occurred flash flood in river Katri flowing at short distance north-west of Gajlitand colliery situated within Katras police station in the said district of Dhanbad. The result was that some kutcha protective embankments constructed on the eastern bank of the said river Katri got breached during the night and flood water of the river gushed inside the nearby pit no. 6 of the said Gajlitand colliery. 64 miners working in the second shift inside the pit/mine got entrapped and lost their lives. The tragedy was compounded by human failure on the part of the management of the colliery inasmuch as due to poor or non-functioning of boiler, mechanised cage lift system failed as the haulage machine stopped in absence of steam in the boiler and the entrapped miners could not be rescued inspite of frantic ringing of alarm bells. On getting information of the tragedy, the Officer-in-Charge of Katras Police Station named Suresh Prasad Singh went to the pit site alongwith other policemen and drew FIR at about 6 a.m. on 27.9.95. In the FIR that he drew the Officer-in-charge of Katras police station stated that the management of the colliery was not alive to safety measures since long inasmuch as kutcha embankments were not being maintained and properly looked after allowing rats and foxes making holes therein, which, in all probability, resulted in the breach thereof. Even though there was complaint by the miners of the first shift that water was seeping in the pit, colliery officials at the spot forced the workers of the second shift to go down in the pit to raise coal in dangerous situation. Consequently, he implicated in the FIR the Banksman, Onsetter, Boiler operators Agent, Sr. Even though there was complaint by the miners of the first shift that water was seeping in the pit, colliery officials at the spot forced the workers of the second shift to go down in the pit to raise coal in dangerous situation. Consequently, he implicated in the FIR the Banksman, Onsetter, Boiler operators Agent, Sr. Under Manager, Safety Officer, Sr. Assistant Colliery Manager, Overman, Mining Sardar, Engine Khalasi, and Dy. C. M. (Safety), besides these petitioners who were then posted as the Chief General Manager and Dy. Chief General Manager of Katras Area No. IV. At the relevant time, Ramesh Khanna, the petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4050/97R was the Chief General Manager and Phool Chand Sood petitioner in Crim. Misc. 4108/97R was acting as Chief General Manager of the Area in absence of the former who was on sick leave on account of fracturing his leg a few days earlier. In the FIR all the accused persons, 14 in number, were charged for commission of offence u/s. 304 read with section 34 IPC. 3. An attempt was made by these petitioners for quashing the FIR itself while the investigation was going on the ground, inter alia, that the Central Govt. had appointed a court of enquiry in accordance with the provision of Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952 " However, by order dt. 10.1.96 a Bench of this Court declined to interfere with the process of investigation in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On completing investigation, police submitted chargesheet no. 177 of 1996 dt. 17.10.96 against as many as 15 persons including the petitioners showing commission of offences under Sections 304 and 201 read with section 34 IPC; sections 126, 127 and 128 of Mining Act (sic) and section 6(e) of Boilers Act, 1923 . The chargesheeted accused persons appeared before the C.J.M. and canvassed that no offence was made out against them on the ground that the tragedy which had occurred, was entirely a natural calamity and act of God. Therefore, they sought their discharge at the time of taking cognizance itself. However, their plea did not find favour with the learned C.J.M. who made the impugned order dt. Therefore, they sought their discharge at the time of taking cognizance itself. However, their plea did not find favour with the learned C.J.M. who made the impugned order dt. 17.12.96 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offences under sections 301 and 201 readwith section 34 IPC, sections 126, 127 and 128 of the Mining Act and section 6(e) read with section 24 of the Boilers Act and transferred the proceeding to a Judicial Magistrate of first class for committing the case to the court of sessions in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been challenged in these proceedings by two of the accused persons on identical grounds. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were in no way responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the occurrence that had taken place. They were the Chief General Manager and Dy. Chief General Manager of Katras Area of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. comprising of six collieries named West Modidih, Keshalpur, Ramkanali, Solarpur, Angar Pathra and Gajlitand at the relevant time. The petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4050/97R was on leave even prior to the tragedy and the petitioner in Crim. Misc. No. 4108/97R was the Dy. Chief General Manager of the said Area and was acting in place of the former temporarily between 17.9.95 and 10.10.95. In no way, they were persons responsible for the management of the Gajlitand colliery at the spot. There was absolutely no evidence of any witness in support of the allegation that the miners of the second shift were forced by the Management of the colliery, much less by these petitioners, to go inside the pit inspite of information that due to seepage of water it had become hazardous and unsafe to work therein. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC was made out even if whatever has been stated by the witnesses is taken on its face value. If anybody, it was the officials of the colliery at the spot, who were negligent and not these petitioners. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC was made out even if whatever has been stated by the witnesses is taken on its face value. If anybody, it was the officials of the colliery at the spot, who were negligent and not these petitioners. It has also been contended that even if some negligence is found attributable to the petitioners in neglecting the maintenance of the embankment in between the river and the colliery, there was no immediate proximity between such negligence and the accident resulting in the death of a large number of miners entrapped inside the pit. Therefore, even offence under section 304A IPC is not made out. There is no allegation that petitioners or anybody even tried to cause disappearance of evidence for screening themselves or anybody else from the punishment for an offence so as to constitute the offence under section 201 IPC. The learned counsel submitted that while taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind to the materials collected in course of investigation and the relevant provisions of law. This complete absence of application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is eloquent from the fact that he has taken cognizance for commission of offences punishable under sections 126, 127 and 128 of the Mining Act, although there is no such enactment. Indeed, there is Coal Mines Regulation of 1957 and Regulations 126, 127 and 128 thereof make provisions for taking certain safety measures in respect of inundation of a mine by flood, external or internal. The learned counsel has submitted that contravention of those Regulations are made punishable under section 72-C of the Mines Act. But prosecution of an Agent, Owner or Manager of any colliery for any offence under the Act is permissible only at the instance of the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or an Inspector authorised by the Chief Inspector. Similarly, prosecution for the offence under the Boilers Act is permissible only with previous sanction of the Chief Boiler inspector. Therefore, even the cognizance of offences under the Mines Act and Boilers Act was bad. 5. Similarly, prosecution for the offence under the Boilers Act is permissible only with previous sanction of the Chief Boiler inspector. Therefore, even the cognizance of offences under the Mines Act and Boilers Act was bad. 5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that in the night between 26.9.95 and 27.9.95, the earthen protective embankments erected in between river Katri and Angar Pathra and Gajlitand collieries breached due to flash flood in the river as a result of incessant and heavy rainfall right from the evening on 26.9.95. The result was that flood water of river Katri found its way in pit no. 6 of Gajlitand colliery in which between 70 and 80 miners were working during the second shift. It is also not disputed that even prior to the flood water gushing into the pit entrapping the miners, the miners inside frantically rung alarm bells which went unheeded. When the Engine Khalasi was contacted on phone with request to lift the miners, he did lift, at least, 24 miners by 9.45 or 10. p.m. on 26.9.95. The remaining 64 miners could not be lifted as the haulage machine stopped functioning because of insufficient steam in the boiler. The weather was stormy and supply of electrical energy stood snapped since 6.35 p.m. There is evidence of witnesses that attempt was made to generate steam in the boiler, but it failed due to stormy weather. The water actually gushed in the pit at about 1.30 a.m. in the night (on 27.9.95). In course of investigation, some witnesses also complained that the tragedy had occurred primarily for two reasons; first, that kutcha embankments erected on the eastern bank of the river were pretty old and they were not being properly looked after and maintained by the management; and secondly, that Bankman deputed to keep a watch on the rising water of the river had been withdrawn by the local colliery officials. In other words, there was no body to watch the mood of the river during the evening and night when the tragedy took place. On these grounds, responsibility for the tragedy taking a toll of 64 miners has been fastened on these petitioners and other functioneries of the colliery in question. 6. In other words, there was no body to watch the mood of the river during the evening and night when the tragedy took place. On these grounds, responsibility for the tragedy taking a toll of 64 miners has been fastened on these petitioners and other functioneries of the colliery in question. 6. In the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also observed that the management was negligent in the matter of using an outdated boiler, in consequence of which sufficient steam could not be generated in time making the haulage machine nonfunctioning so that the entrapped miners could not be lifted by using the cage lift. The law is well settled that a criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance can be quashed at its outset only if it is found that on taking the allegation made in the FIR and materials collected in course of investigation in support thereof on their face value, no offence alleged by the prosecution is made out. In the instant case, the allegation is that due to some negligent act in not taking proper care of the protective embankments and using wornout boiler, the fatal accident took place. Certainly, even if what has been stated by the witnesses in course of investigation in this regard is taken to be true, no offence under section 304 IPC for which cognizance has been taken, is made out. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines culpable homicide. According to this section, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide, which is punishable under section 304 IPC. The evidence is entirely lacking that any of the accused persons including these petitioners had done any act with the intention of causing death of the miners or with intention on causing such bodily injury to them as was likely to result in death or with knowledge that thereby they were likely to cause death of those miners. The evidence is entirely lacking that any of the accused persons including these petitioners had done any act with the intention of causing death of the miners or with intention on causing such bodily injury to them as was likely to result in death or with knowledge that thereby they were likely to cause death of those miners. For the reasons best known to him, the Officer-in-charge of Katras police station had stated in the first information report that he was told that inspite of the fact that the workers who came out of the pit after performing their duties during the first shift, had disclosed that working inside had become hazardous and unsafe due to seepage of water therein from outside, the local officials of the colliery forced the miners of the second shift to go down. if it were so, certainly the provisions of section 299 IPC were attracted. But in the entire case diary there is not a whisper by any of the witnesses in support of this allegation. It will be useful to note that the first shift of working in the colliery started from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., second shift from 4 p.m. to 12 mid-night, and third shift from 12 mid-night to 8 a.m. next. The rain itself started around 4 p.m. on that day. Therefore, there was no question of the miners of the first shift making such disclosure of the condition down in the colliery having become hazardous. Atleast, none of the miners on duty during the second shift, who were fortunate enough to be rescued, have stated that they or any of them had been forced to go down deep in the pit inspite of hazardous condition being reported by their predecessors. Therefore, there can be no doubt that facts stated do not constitute offence of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 IPC. 7. If death of the miners entrapped inside the mine was the result of rash or negligent act on the part of any person including these petitioners, an offence u/s. 304A IPC can be said to be made out. Question arises whether the petitioners who were not the persons functioning at the spot, can be held guilty of any rash or negligent act which resulted in the death of those miners. Question arises whether the petitioners who were not the persons functioning at the spot, can be held guilty of any rash or negligent act which resulted in the death of those miners. As indicated earlier, there is no evidence that these petitioners, or for that matter anybody, had forced the workers or even allowed them to go down in the pit being cognizant of impending danger which was not there when the working of the second shift had started. The only allegation, and that too of bald in nature, is that the management was guilty of neglecting the maintenance of the earthen embankments constructed on the eastern side of river Katri so that there were rat holes and fox holes, due to which the embankments could not withstand the on-slaught of the gushing water of the river and got breached. The learned counsel has submitted that in order to constitute an offence u/s. 304A IPC, it is essential that the death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused. He has placed reliance on a few decisions of the apex court. In AIR 1965 SC 1616 (Qurban Hussein Mohammed Ali Rangawalla V/s. State of Maharashtra) it has been held that what section 304A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. In the case of Sulaiman Rahiman Mulani and another V/s. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1968 SC 829 corresponding to 1968 Cr. L. J. 1013, a three-Judge Bench of the apex court has held that the requirements of section 304A IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of accused was proximate cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. The same view was taken by the apex court in the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt V/s. State of Gujrat : (1972)3 SCC 525. There must be direct nexus between death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. The same view was taken by the apex court in the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt V/s. State of Gujrat : (1972)3 SCC 525. It has been held by another three-Judge Bench of the apex court that in a prosecution for an offence under section 304A of IPC, the court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of rash or negligent act, whether that act was the proximate and sufficient cause of death without intervention of anothers negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in doing of an act does not establish an offence under section 304A IPC. 8. In the present case, the only allegation based on conjecture of the witnesses and the Investigating Officer is that embankments on the eastern side of the river got breached because they were old, constructed before taking over of the mines in 1973, and were not being properly repaired or maintained. Therefore, due to such breach, flood water of river Katri gushed into the pit resulting in the death of the miners. From the case diary, one finds that the distance between the embankments and the pit was roughly 1 km. The breach had taken place towards north-west of the pit; part of the embankment fell within Gajlitand colliery while major portion thereof was part of adjoining Angrapathra colliery. Even if it is assumed that the breach was made because the embankments were not properly being maintained and even remotely the petitioners were concerned with the maintenance thereof, because the two collieries in question were within their Area, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that their such omission was the proximate and sufficient cause of the accident resulting in the death of the miners. Therefore, the facts stated do not constitute even an offence punishable under section 304A IPC against these petitioners. 9. As regards the allegation that Banksmen had been removed from duty, there is no allegation that these petitioners were responsible for the same. At least, they had no immediate control over them, the control being that of the Agent or Manager of the colliery concerned. Certainly, there is no evidence that, at least, these petitioners made any attempt to cause disappearance of evidence. At least, they had no immediate control over them, the control being that of the Agent or Manager of the colliery concerned. Certainly, there is no evidence that, at least, these petitioners made any attempt to cause disappearance of evidence. Petitioner Ramesh Khanna was confined to bed as he had broken his legs and was incapable of going to the site of the occurrence. Admittedly, petitioner Phool Chand Sood reached the site of the occurrence after the arrival of the policemen including the Officer-in-charge of Katras police station. The case diary finds his statement to the effect that he had gone to Dhanbad Railway Station to receive his wife who was coming from Calcutta by Kalka Mail which was late. While going to his residence from Dhanbad, he learnt of some similar problem at Modidih within his jurisdiction. Therefore, he rushed there. Later on, when he came to know of the tragedy at Gajlitand, he went there. So, he had no opportunity to cause disappearance of evidence in respect of a crime or offence that was committed or suspected to have been committed. Therefore, even offence u/s. 201 IPC is not shown to have been made out against any of the petitioners. 10. As regards the offence(s) under the Mines Act, less said the better. I have already indicated that there is no enactment like Mining Act. Chapter IX of the Mines Act, 1952 provides for penalties and procedures. Section 72-A of the Act provides for punishment for contravention of any provision of any regulation or of any by-law or of any order made thereunder relating to matters specified in clauses (d), (i), (m), (n), (o), (p), (r), (s) and (u) of section 57 respecting provisions for enabling Managers of mine and others acting under them to efficiently discharge their duties, regulating storage conveyance and use of explosives; for providing for safety of roads etc.; inspection of workings and seal of fire areas in a mine and restriction of workings in the vicinity of sea, lake and river etc.; in respect of providing ventilation in mine, regulating generation, storage transmission and use of electricity of mines, provision for proper lighting of mine and use of safety lamps etc.; provision against explosives, ignition of inflamable gases or dust etc.; and requiring the owner, agent, managers of mine to have fixed boundaries of mine etc. Section 72-B makes punishment for contravention of orders u/s. 22 of the Act which relate to power of Inspectors when cases of danger not expressly provided against exist or when employment of persons is dangerous. Section 72C provides for punishment for contravention of law with dangerous result. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act or of any Regulation, Rule or by-law or of any order made thereunder other than an order made under sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 22 or under sub-section (2) of Section 22A shall be punishable : (a) if such contravention results in loss of life with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to 5000 rupees or with both; or (b) if such contravention results in serious bodily injuriy, with Imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to 3000 rupees or with both; or (c) if such contravention otherwise causes injuries or danger to persons employed in the mine or other persons in or about the mine with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to 1000 rupees or with both, provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in writing in the judgment of the court such fine, in the case of contraventions referred to in clause (a) shall not be less than 3000 rupees. 11. The Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 has been framed, under regulation making power. Regulation 126 provides that when any mine or part thereof is so situated that there is any danger or inrush of surface water into the mine or part thereof, adequate protection against such inrush shall be provided and maintained. Regulation 127 provides that proper provision shall be made in every mine to prevent eruption of water or other liquid matter from the workings of the same mine or of an adjoining mine. Clause (5) of the said Regulation say that whenever seepage of water which is not normal to the steam is noticed at any place in any working or if there be any such suspicion or doubt, such working shall immediately be stopped and the Chief Inspector and the Regional Inspector shall forthwith be informed of such seepage. Clause (5) of the said Regulation say that whenever seepage of water which is not normal to the steam is noticed at any place in any working or if there be any such suspicion or doubt, such working shall immediately be stopped and the Chief Inspector and the Regional Inspector shall forthwith be informed of such seepage. Such working shall not be extended further except with the prior permission in writing of the Chief Inspector and subject to such condition as he may specify therein. Regulation 128 is in respect cf intentional flooding. This regulation is, certainly, not applicable in the present case because there is no allegation of any intentional flooding of the mine which resulted in the death of the miners. Similarly, Regulation 127 is also not applicable because there is no allegation of inundation of the pit/mine from the underground seepage. To some extent Regulation 126 is attracted which required adequate protection against inrush of surface water into the mine because of the proxomity thereof with river Katri. In fact, embankments were erected, part of which was of concrete and part of earth, maintenance of which is alleged to have been neglected for pretty long time. Therefore, if this provision of Regulation 126 was contravened with the dangerous result, offence under section 72-C of the Mines Act is shown to be made out. But Section 75 of the Mines Act provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector. In the present case, cognizance was not taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complaint or even FIR made by the Chief Inspector, District Magistrate or an Inspector authorised by the Chief Inspector. In the present case, cognizance was not taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complaint or even FIR made by the Chief Inspector, District Magistrate or an Inspector authorised by the Chief Inspector. Therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance of offences under the Mines Act is squarely covered by the rules laid down by the apex court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 in which it has been laid down, inter alia, that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, to the institution and the continuance of the proceedings, the criminal proceeding has to be quashed if the bar is not crossed. 12. Coming to offence punishable under the provision of the Boilers Act, 1923, it will not be out of place to mention that observation of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that an outdated boiler was being used by the management of the colliery inspite of express direction given by the Boiler Inspector regarding its expiry, is an error of record. In the impugned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that inspite of the fact that alarm of danger was continuously ringing the lift of the colliery could not be sent inside the colliery for the rescue of the labourers inside the colliery and it is said that due to paucity of vapur/steam the lift could not move which may be for the reasons that the limitation of boiler had expired or unskilled or untrained person was employed as boiler operator without any licence in this regard". In the case diary, the Investigating Officer has noted that two boiler operators were found not possessing requisite certificate of proficiency. Section 6 of the Boilers Act prohibits use of unregistered or uncertified boilers. In the case diary, the Investigating Officer has noted that two boiler operators were found not possessing requisite certificate of proficiency. Section 6 of the Boilers Act prohibits use of unregistered or uncertified boilers. According to this section, no owner of a boiler shall use the boiler or permit it to be used : (a) unless it has been registered in accordance with the provision of the Act; (b) in the case of any boiler which has been transferred from one State to another until transfer has been reported in the prescribed manner; (c) unless a certificate or provisional order made authorising the use of the boiler is for the time being in force under the Act; (d) at a pressure higher than the maximum pressure recorded in such certificate or provisional order and (e) where the State Govt. has made rule requiring that boiler shall be in charge of person holding certificate of proficiency and/or competence, unless the boiler is in charge of a person holding the certificate required by such rule. Section 24 of the Act lays down that any person who uses or permits to be used a boiler of which he is a owner and which has been transferred from one State to another, without such transfer having been reported as required by section 6; or (b) if the owner of a boiler fails to cause the registered number allotted to the boiler under this Act or to be marked on the boiler as required by sub-section (6) of section 7, or (c) makes any structural alteration, addition or renewal in or to the boiler without first obtaining sanction of the Chief Inspector when so required by section 12, or to steel pipe without first informing the Chief Inspector when so required by section 13; or (d) fails to report an accident to a boiler or steel pipe when so required by section 18; or (e) tampers with safety valve of a boiler so as to render it inoperative at the maximum pressure at which the use of the boiler is authorised under the Act or (f) allows any person to go inside a boiler without effectively disconnecting the same in the prescribed manner from any steam or hot water connected with any other boiler or from fuel main, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to 500 rupees. None of the provisions mentioned in clause (a) to (f) of section 24 of the Act is shown to have been breached or contravened in this case. No punishment is prescribed for permitting any person operating a boiler even if he has not obtained any certificate of proficiency or competence as required in clause (e) of section 6 of the Act. Even if any rule has been made by the State Govt. in this behalf this has not been either mentioned or adverted to in the case diary or the police report. Therefore, offence u/s. 24 of the Boilers Act is not shown to be made out on the face of the record. 13. Section 23 of the Act makes provision for penalty for illegal use of boiler. According to this section any owner of a boiler who in any case in which a certificate or provisional order is required for the use of the boiler under the Act uses a boiler either without any such certificate or order being in force or at any higher pressure than that allowed thereby, shall be punishable with fine, etc. It has been observed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that certificate in respect of the boiler which was being operated on the day of occurrence, had expired on 10.7.95, that is, before the occurrence took place; still it was being used and operated and resulted in the tragedy. This observation appears to be misreading of the letter of the Chief Boiler Inspector of Dhanbad incorporated in para 115 of the case diary. That letter purported to have been issued on 16.10.95. According to the document, the boiler in question was inspected on 10.7.95 and necessary certificate was issued. According to the certificate, the boiler was found fit to be operated till 10.7.96. What the letter mentions is that after the inspection of the boiler on 10.7.95 no defect therein was reported by the management to the office of the Chief Boiler Inspector. Thus, it is manifest that the boiler in question was being used by the management when the necessary certificate issued for the purpose was still in force. Therefore, even offence u/s. 23 of the Boilers Act was not committed. Thus, it is manifest that the boiler in question was being used by the management when the necessary certificate issued for the purpose was still in force. Therefore, even offence u/s. 23 of the Boilers Act was not committed. That apart, section 26 of the Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under the said Act shall be instituted except within 24 months from the date of the commission of the offence and no such prosecution shall be instituted without a previous sanction of the Chief Inspector. In the entire case diary, there is nothing to indicate that necessary sanction of the Chief Boiler Inspector had been obtained before institution of the prosecution against the petitioners. Therefore, even if any offence under the Boilers Act is shown to be committed, (although in fact it is not found so), the proceeding itself is hit by the provision of section 26 of the said Act. 14. As observed by the apex court in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. V/s. Special Judicial Magistrate : (1998)5 SCC 749 summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course. Before summoning an accused to face trial on a criminal charge, the Magistrate "has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegation or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused". In the instant case, there was plea by and on behalf of the petitioners at the time of taking cognizance that the materials collected in course of investigation do not constitute any offence having been committed by them. Still the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of offence which were either not made out at all; or if made out, were prohibited being cognizance taken of by specific provisions contained in the special Acts (Mines Act and Boilers Act). In doing so, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even did not care to go through the relevant provisions of the enactments mentioned in the police report so as to find out if facts stated and materials collected in course of investigation made out any such offence. In doing so, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even did not care to go through the relevant provisions of the enactments mentioned in the police report so as to find out if facts stated and materials collected in course of investigation made out any such offence. It appears that it has become a routine on the part of the Judicial Magistrates to borrow in their orders the sections mentioned in the police reports or complaints while taking cognizance and even while framing charges, without adverting to the relevant facts vis-a-vis penal sections mentioned, and making sure whether or not those facts, actually, constitute the offence(s) mentioned. This does not amount to application of judicial mind by a Magistrate taking cognizance. 15. Be that as it may, the facts remains that even if what has been stated by the prosecution in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation are taken on their face value, offence under sections 304 and 201 or for that matter under section 304A IPC are not shown to have been committed by these petitioners. For the reasons stated above, even no offence under the Boilers Act is shown to have been committed. Even if offence under section 72-C of the Mines Act is shown to have been committed on the basis of the materials collected in course of investigation, the prosecution of these petitioners who come within the category of Manager, is barred by section 75 of the said Act. 16. In the result, both the applications are allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including order dt. 17.12.96 taking cognizance of offences against these petitioners in Katras P. S. case no. 334/95 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed.