JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Ram Gopal, Satbir and Rajinder have filed this appeal against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated September 27, 1990 whereby they were convicted under Section 304-A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 429 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years, pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A/34 Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 429 Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellants were partners of a firm known as M/s. Golden Mines which took the contract of mining rights for excavating minerals from pit 19-A. These rights had been given to them by the Haryana Minerals Limited. The mines were inspected regularly by the mining Mate Beg Raj and the staff of Haryana Minerals. On November 8, 1987 and April 4, 1988 it was found that the north- eastern side was in a dangerous condition and was ordered to be closed. On April 28, the site was again inspected by Beg Raj who found that the eastern side had been watered. From this he inferred that excavation was going to be carried out in that portion and, therefore, he passed order not to excavate and closed that portion as well. However, inspite of this, the appellants did not stop the work and continued excavation. On the morning of May 6, 1988 when Chander and Chatri along with other labourers were mining from the northern- eastern side of pit 19-A, the portion caved in, as a result of which Chander and Chatri died and a mule was also lost. Case was initially registered under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code but later on the one under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellants were arrested and sent up for trial. At the trial charge was framed under Section 304 Indian Penal Code for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder leading to death of Chander and Chatri. Charge under 429 Indian Penal Code was also framed for the death of the mule. 4. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. At the trial charge was framed under Section 304 Indian Penal Code for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder leading to death of Chander and Chatri. Charge under 429 Indian Penal Code was also framed for the death of the mule. 4. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. Shashi Bala (PW 1) who conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Chander and Chatri and gave the opinion that they had both died due to asphyxia after getting buried under debris. Dr. Satbir (PW 2) testified as regards the post-mortem on the dead body of the mule. Jitender Parshad, Mines Manager, Haryana Minerals appeared as PW 5, Ram Kumar Dass, Mining Engineer appeared as PW 6 and Beg Raj, Mining Mate appeared as PW 15. After closing of the prosecution evidence, various items of the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The three appellants stated in their statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that the work of the mines was handled by Jamadar and Munshi. The appellants were partners of the firm but never visited the mines. Munshi used to give the accounts to another partner Brij Lal. They had no active control over the mines and never employed any one. The labourers who operated the mines chose the area of their choice and were paid on the basis of material produced and the quantity thereof. No witness was examined in defence. 5. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the mines had been taken on contract by the firm known as M/s. Golden Mines of which the three appellants and two others, namely, Satyawan and Brij Lal were partners. The partnership deed was dated November 1, 1986. The appellants had accepted that mine 19-A was on contract with their firm. The trial Court also held that there was no evidence to establish that the appellants were sleeping partners of the firm, therefore, as active partners they were liable for the death of the two deceased and of the mule. As the incident had occurred due to the acts or omission on the part of Jamadar and Munshi, who were under the direct control of the firm, the appellants were held guilty of causing death by their rash and negligent act of sending the deceased to work in a dangerous mine. 6. As the incident had occurred due to the acts or omission on the part of Jamadar and Munshi, who were under the direct control of the firm, the appellants were held guilty of causing death by their rash and negligent act of sending the deceased to work in a dangerous mine. 6. The most important witness in this case was Beg Raj (PW 15). The witness was a Mining Mate and a part of his duties were to supervise the area where the mine was located. According to the witness, mine No. 19-A was under the firm known as Golden Mines. The mine had been closed on the north-eastern side because it was dangerous. The witness had inspected the mines. On November 19, 1987 he had inspected the silica sand mines including mine No. 19-A and his inspection reports are Ex. PU and PU/1. Therein he had recorded that the north-eastern side of mine No. 19-A was closed while on the south-western side work was on and minerals were being brought from the pit. On the western side some work was in progress but the work was stopped and instructions were given that if work continued legal proceedings would be initiated. 7. The mine was again inspected on April 4, 1988 and inspection reports in respect thereof were Ex. PU/2 and PU/3. The area of mine No. 19-A was marked and the contractor was given a written notice to close the north side. The notice was Ex. PH, which was delivered to Balram, Jamadar. 8. On April 28, 1988 Beg Raj again visited the mine and found that eastern side which had earlier been closed had been watered. From this Beg Raj inferred that the mine was sought to be worked. He again issued instructions not to work in the mine and his inspection notes were Ex. PU/4 and PU/5. The inspection report had been countersigned by Shri J.P. Srivastava (PW 5). Beg Raj also issued a notice Ex. PJ to M/s Golden Mines which had been received on their behalf. Thereafter, the witness had tried to isolate the partners of the firm from their liability and confined his statement to issuing instructions to the Jamadar who was present at the spot and stating that the partners were never found present at the spot during his inspection. It was at this stage that the witness was declared hostile. 9. Thereafter, the witness had tried to isolate the partners of the firm from their liability and confined his statement to issuing instructions to the Jamadar who was present at the spot and stating that the partners were never found present at the spot during his inspection. It was at this stage that the witness was declared hostile. 9. The defence of the appellants was also that they were partners of the firm, the work of the mine was handled by the Jamadar and the Munshi and they had no active control over the mine. They never employed any one. The labourers who operated the mines worked in the area of their choice and were paid by the Munshi for the material produced and the quantity thereof. 10. It is quite obvious from the evidence on record that the work during which the deceased labourers and the mule perished was extremely dangerous and hazardous. 11. The appellants firm had employed these persons to exploit the mineral resources of the mine. It is not as if that the appellants or their men at the spot were completely ignorant of the fact that mine No. 19-A had been declared dangerous. The Mining Mate Beg Raj (PW 15) and the Mining Manager J.P. Srivastava (PW 5) had categorically stated that the dangerous nature of mine No. 19-A had been notified to the representatives of the mining firm. 12. It could be argued on behalf of the firm that the two deaths had been occurred due to misadventure. The deceased knowingly entered the dangerous mine but when they were inside the mine they were alone and should have taken prompt preventive measures when they found that continued mining was fraught with personal danger. 13. This case is not similar to Chetan Bhatnagar v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 135 (P&H), in which the tube-well engineer had sent a mechanic down in the pit to repair a tube-well motor but the mechanic died due to asphyxia. In that case it was held that in order to sustain the charge, the act must be causa causans (immediate cuase) and it was not enough that it was the cause sine qua non (the necessary cause or condition allowing something e.g. the causa causans to be operative but not itself causa causans). In that case it was held that in order to sustain the charge, the act must be causa causans (immediate cuase) and it was not enough that it was the cause sine qua non (the necessary cause or condition allowing something e.g. the causa causans to be operative but not itself causa causans). The principle initiated in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1616 was followed in Chetan Bhatnagars case and charges under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code were quashed because the death of the deceased had been neither by malice aforethought or by criminal negligence. It was neither murder nor manslaughter. The deceaseds death was by misadventure, in other words there was complete absence of any criminal intention or criminal negligence. 14. The principles on the basis of which Chetan Bhatnagars case was decided may not apply in the present case since there was ample notice to the representatives of the mining firm and through them to the partners of the firm that mine No. 19-A was dangerous and it was not to be worked in. Exploitation of mineral wealth for personal gains tend to make people blind to the hazards involved. The deceased were exploiting the mine for small profit but the firm, acting through its partners, was exploiting the mine for much greater profit and had become negligent in their activities which led to the accident. The firm and its partners were fully aware of the dangers involved but driven by the lure of lucre, they ignored the warnings and continued the exploitation of the dangerous mine. The appellants may not have been present at the spot but they have to be fastened with the knowledge that the continuous mining of mine No. 19-A was a dangerous operation which could lead to fatal accident if labourers were sent down the shaft. The judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 304- A/34 and 429 Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place in 1988 and the appellants were convicted in 1990 and it is now 14 years since the decision of the trial Court, the sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal stands disposed of with the modification in the quantum of sentence. Order acordingly.