JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court under section 72C(1)(a) of Mines Act passed against the petitioner sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default stipulation has been upheld and confirmed. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that a written complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Mines stating inter alia that a fatal accident has occurred on 23.11.1998 at Gonudih Colliery, resulting the death of Karmu Ravidas, Drill Helper aged about 30 years. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that while the drill helper standing close to the loading machine it swung and weeps of bucket inflicted seriously bodily injuries due to which hesuccumbed instantaneous. It was also found that there was violation of contravention of rules and regulations regarding safety measures due to which the said accidental death took place. After trial, the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced as stated above but by the same judgment, other co-accused persons having onerous responsibility in the management and operation of mining and liable to provide safety measures have been acquitted extending to the benefit of doubt. 3. The complaint was lodged by one M.M. Sharma, the Director Mines Safety, Dhanbad (Region No.1) before the court of learned CJM, Dhanbad who after taking cognizance of the offences and trial of the case has passed judgment and order holding the petitioner guilty as stated above. 4. It further appears that at the relevant time on the above accident, co-accused A.K. Srivastava was General Manager of Kusunda Area and was authorized as Deemed Agent by the owner, co-accused S.K. Singh, who was manager of Mines and the present petitioner was shovel operator who were bound to conduct all mining operation in strictly in accordance with the provision of Mines Act, 1952 and the rules and regulations and order made thereunder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is simply a shovel operator, admittedly there was failure on the part of the management to provide sufficient light and training to the shovel operator for which they faced trial but acquitted extending the benefit of doubts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is simply a shovel operator, admittedly there was failure on the part of the management to provide sufficient light and training to the shovel operator for which they faced trial but acquitted extending the benefit of doubts. The poor operator, who happens to be present petitioner has been punished for the glaring negligence on the part of management, who are enjoying the order of acquittal without his own fault. The petitioner has remained in custody for one month during the pendency of the revision application. The complaint was filed by an unauthorized person, who was not a Gazetted Inspector under the Mines Act as requires under section 5(1)of the Mines Act. Moreover the complainant himself was not examined by the prosecution to prove its case. It is further submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of guilt of the petitioner, he deserve to be extended benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has been held guilty by the trial court, which has been confirmed by the appellate court and the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner are not fit to be entertained in this revision. The complainant was authorized person to lodge the complaint and mere not examination of the complainant does not vitiate the trial or give any premium to the accused person. The fatal accident took place in Gonudih Colliery and upon enquiry, it was found that accused Nos.1 and 2 have failed to ensure adequate light in the open cast working area as well as failed to provide adequate training to shovel operator of CK170 shovel. There was also failure to ensure that the loading machine being operated when person(s) are in such proximity as to be endangered. The aforesaid contravention resulted in the loss of life of one person, therefore, the accused persons are vicariously liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 73/72C(1)(a) of the Coal Mines Act, 1952. Hence, there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 7. The aforesaid contravention resulted in the loss of life of one person, therefore, the accused persons are vicariously liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 73/72C(1)(a) of the Coal Mines Act, 1952. Hence, there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 7. It appears that during the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses have been examined and documentary evidence has also been adduced. It is clear cut case of the complainant that accused Nos.1 to 3 failed to provide adequate light at the accident place and also failed to provide adequate training to the Shovel Operator of CK-170 Shovel. The present petitioner failed to ensure that loading machine being operated when person(s) are in such proximity has to be in danger. It is proved by the prosecution witnesses that the present petitioner was working as a shovel operator but he was not well trained and he could not operate properly. This fact is self-explanatory of the happening of the incident in the background of not providing sufficient facility of light and training by the management and the Superior Officers who were directly responsible to provide the same. Engaging and unskilled person(s) as an operator of heavy shovel machine is itself gross negligence on the part of the management. It further transpires that no specific negligence on the present petitioner has been described by the witnesses in their evidence or even collected under enquiry conducted by the complainant who himself was not examined in this case to be cross-examined by the petitioner in his defence. 8. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the both courts below suffered from gross illegality and infirmity in the matter of appreciation and scrutinizing of the evidence available on record. The petitioner could not hold guilty for such scanty evidence and in absence of concurrent evidence showing his guilt, he deserves acquittal from the charge. 9. In view of the above judgement and order of the both courts below is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. Petitioner is held not guilty for offence charges against him and set at liberty and also discharge from his liability of bail bonds. 10. Pending I. As. if any are hereby disposed accordingly. 11. 9. In view of the above judgement and order of the both courts below is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. Petitioner is held not guilty for offence charges against him and set at liberty and also discharge from his liability of bail bonds. 10. Pending I. As. if any are hereby disposed accordingly. 11. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent back for information and needful.