Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Jharia (Bhrragarh) P.S. Case no.308 of 2008 including the order dated 16.8.2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 337, 338, 287, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that one Gopal Chandra Mahto, son of the informant, Gobind Ram Mahto while was working as Loader in Burragarh Colliery, roof of the colliery caved in, as a result of which Gopal Chandra Mahto sustained injury. Thereupon he was removed to Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. According to the informant, this occurrence took place as the Manager had not taken step for adequate safety for the workmen. 5. On such allegation, a case was lodged as Jharia (Bhrragarh) P.S. Case no.308 of 2008 under Sections 337, 338, 287, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act. Upon submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offence was taken on 16.8.2010, the same was challenged before this Court. 6. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that whatever allegation is there in the FIR that is the subject matter of prosecution under the Mines Act, the special legislation which will have overriding effect over the general law and therefore, any prosecution cannot be maintained for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 7. 6. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that whatever allegation is there in the FIR that is the subject matter of prosecution under the Mines Act, the special legislation which will have overriding effect over the general law and therefore, any prosecution cannot be maintained for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 7. Further it was submitted that so far as the offence under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act is concerned, that cannot be maintained against the petitioners no.1 to 3, namely, P.R. Mukhopadhyay @ Pramod Ranjan Mukhopadhyay, Tarun Kanti Chakraborty and Rajmuni Ram, who happens to be the Managers of the colliery in view of the provision as contained in Section 75 of the Mines Act which does prescribe that prosecution of owner, agent or manager of the establishment cannot be instituted except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or an Inspector authorized in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector and thereby the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences of the Indian Penal code and also under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act against the petitioners no.1 to 3, namely, P.R. Mukhopadhyay @ Pramod Ranjan Mukhopadhyay, Tarun Kanti Chakraborty and Rajmuni Ram. 8. Further it was submitted that so far petitioners no.4 and 5 are concerned, who are the Overman and Assistant Manager, they also cannot be prosecuted for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. 9. At the same time, prosecution under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act in absence of any allegation that on account of negligent act of those petitioners, accident took place cannot be maintained. 10. A counter affidavit has been field on behalf of the opposite party wherein it has been stated in categorical terms that the petitioners were negligent in not providing support system which is essential where mining work was undergoing and because of this negligent conduct and act, roof of the mines caved in, as a result of which, one of the workmen died. 11. 11. Thus, the stand which has been taken on behalf of the petitioners is that none of the petitioners can be prosecuted under the offences of the Indian Penal Code whereas the stand which has been taken on behalf of the opposite party is that since negligent act was there on the part of the petitioners, they can very well be prosecuted even for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 12. In the context of the stand taken on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the matter regarding investigation and enquiry of the case falling under the Indian Penal Code or any Special Act which reads as under: “Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other law:- 1. All offences under the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. 2. All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.” 13. Thus, sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Code provides that in absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in the code shall affect any special or local law for the time being in force. However, the conjoint effect of that provision and sub-Section (2) of Section 4 would be as follows: “1. That all offences, whether under the penal code or under any other law, have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. 2. This rule is subject to qualification that in respect of offences under other laws that is to say, under laws other than Indian Penal Code, if there be an enactment regulating the manner of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, such enactment will prevail over the code. 3. The provisions of special or local law will prevail over the provisions contained in the Code unless there is specific provisions to the contrary.” 14. 3. The provisions of special or local law will prevail over the provisions contained in the Code unless there is specific provisions to the contrary.” 14. Having taken notice of the provision of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one is required to take notice of Section 72-C of the Mines Act which reads as follows : 72-C. Special provision for contravention of law with dangerous results – (1) whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation, rule or bye-law or of any order made thereunder (other than an order made under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 22 [or under sub-section (2) of Section 22-A], 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 five thousand rupees, or with both; or (b) if such contravention results in serious bodily injury, with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both; or (c) if such contravention otherwise causes injury 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 one thousand 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 a contravention referred to in clause (a), shall not be less than three thousand rupees. 2. Where a person having been convicted under this section is again convicted thereunder, he shall be punishable with double the punishment provided by sub-Section (1). 3. Any Court imposing or confirming in appeal, revision or otherwise a sentence of fine passed under this section may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be paid as compensation to the persons injured or, in the case of his death, to this legal representative: Provided that if the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal has been presented, before the decision of the appeal. Further Section 75 relating to prosecution of owner, agent or manager reads as follows: 75. Prosecution of owner, agent or manager – 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 of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorized in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector: [Provided that the Chief Inspector or the District Magistrate or the Inspector as to authorized shall, before instituting such prosecution, satisfy himself that the owner, agent or manager had failed to exercise all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence]. [Provided further that] in respect of an offence committed in the course of the technical direction and management of a mine, the District Magistrate shall not institute any prosecution against an owner, agent or manager without the previous approval of the Chief Inspector. 16. On perusal of the aforesaid two provisions it does appear that on account of contravention of any rule, regulation or bye-law or any other order made under the Act, if accident takes place which results into loss of life or bodily injury that would be subject matter of prosecution under the Mines Act and therefore, Mines Act being a special legislation provision of it would prevail over the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, investigation, inquiry or trial relating to trial falling within the special legislation is not permissible to be gone into under the General Law as has been noticed earlier, keeping in view the provision as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Under the circumstances, none of the petitioners can be prosecuted under the offences of the Indian Penal Code and thereby that part of the order under which cogniznce of the offence under the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 18. Coming to other aspect of the matter submission which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioners no.1 to 3 being Managers of the Burragarh Colliery cannot be prosecuted even for the offence under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act. 19. 18. Coming to other aspect of the matter submission which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioners no.1 to 3 being Managers of the Burragarh Colliery cannot be prosecuted even for the offence under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act. 19. The provision of Section 75 has already been noted above which does stipulate that no prosecution can be instituted against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines Act except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorized in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector. 20. The statement which has been made in the petition is that the informant had never been authorized to lodge the case under the Mines Act. In that event, the prosecution of petitioners no.1 to 3 even for the offence under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act cannot be maintained. 21. So far the petitioners no.4 and 5, namely, Rambilas Sah and Samu Murmu are concerned, they admittedly do not fall within the mischief of provision of Section 75 of the Act. 22. Keeping in view that fact and also the statement made on behalf of the State to the effect that the petitioners were found negligent in not providing support system, cognizance seems to have rightly been taken by the court against those two persons for the offence under Section 72(c) of the Mines Act. 23. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Jharia (Burragarh) P.S. Case no.308 of 2008 including the order dated 16.8.2010 under which cognizance of the offence was taken is hereby quashed so far the petitioners no.1 to 3, namely, P.R.Mukhopadhyay @ Pramod Ranjan Mukhopadhyay, Tarun KantiChakraborty and Rajmuni Ram are concerned. 24. So far as petitioners no.4 and 5, namely, Rambilas Sah and Samu Murmu are concerned only that part of the order under which cognizance of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code has been taken is hereby set aside. 25. Accordingly, this application stands allowed but in part as indicated above.