JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by Shri M.P. Yadav Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2009 upholding the conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2009 in C.M.A. Case No.446 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections 72(A)/73/72C(i)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952. 3. The factual matrix of the case in a narrow campus is that on 10.03.1997, when an inspection was conducted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Inspector of Mines, under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, it was found that while an outsider was travelling on bicycle towards the haul road of the open cast workings at Golukdih area of M/s BCCL, subsidiary of Coal India Limited, he fall to the lower bench about 11 metre below of the O.C.P. and got severe bodily injuries which proved fatal. 4. It is alleged that at the time of said fatal accident present petitioner and two other staffs were on duty, hence, they were liable for contravention of the provisions of Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations No.98, 100(1) and 190 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 read with the condition No. 6.5 of Annexure II to the permission letter granted by the prosecuting DGMS Authority vide permission letter No.RII/G.O.C.P./P-100.126/98/79 dated 09.01.1997. It is further alleged that the accused persons failed to provide the parapet wall along the haul road at least 1.5 m in height where the accident occurred and also failed to provide check post, notice board at the entrance to the mine to prevent the unauthorized entry of the persons into the mine. 5. An inquiry/inspection was conducted by P.W.-3 Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Inspector of Mines) who observed that when an outsider was travelling on the haul road of the related open cast workings with a bicycle, he lost his balance and fell down to the lower bench about 11 m below of the O.C.P. and received serious bodily injury which proved fatal. As such accused persons are responsible for the contravention of the alleged provisions. 6. As such prosecution was initiated by lodging a complaint dated 06.09.1997 by the Director of Mines Safety Region No.II, Dhanbad. As such accused persons are responsible for the contravention of the alleged provisions. 6. As such prosecution was initiated by lodging a complaint dated 06.09.1997 by the Director of Mines Safety Region No.II, Dhanbad. The accused persons were summoned and only petitioner who happens to be Assistant Manager Golukdih Open Cast Project (in short G.O.C.P.), Dhanbad appeared and faced trial. However, the agent H.N. Singh and the Manager R.S. Singh were absconded during trial and after conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three months and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 72A, R.I., one year and fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 72C(i)(a) and R.I. of one month and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 73 of the Mines Act with default stipulations under each section. 7. The petitioner challenged his conviction passed by learned Trial Court dated 07.12.2009 before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by preferring Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2009 which was also disposed of vide judgment dated 25.06.2015 by Additional Sessions Judge IV Dhanbad and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant was upheld which has been assailed in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders has relied upon following points: (i) In order to substantiate the accusations against the petitioner only 3 witnesses out of 9 named witnesses were examined in this case. The complainant Ravindra Sharma (P.W.-2) was not a competent person to file the complaint against the accused. In absence of any official gazette notification authorizing him as an Inspector of Mines as provided under Section 5(1) of the Mines Act, 1952. Similarly, the complainant was not authorized by D.G.M.S. with written approval as per provision under Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952 to lodge a complaint for the alleged incident. (ii) The Enquiry Officer Dinesh Kumar Sahu (P.W.-3) had no authority or competancy to inquire into the alleged occurrence of the concerned Golukdih Open Cast Project BCCL without any official gazette notification in his name having territorial jurisdiction of such mines as provided under Section 6 and 6(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. (ii) The Enquiry Officer Dinesh Kumar Sahu (P.W.-3) had no authority or competancy to inquire into the alleged occurrence of the concerned Golukdih Open Cast Project BCCL without any official gazette notification in his name having territorial jurisdiction of such mines as provided under Section 6 and 6(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. (iii) The petitioner being Assistant Manager was not liable or responsible for the duties of a manager as provided under Regulation 41 of the C.M.R., specially in absence of Manager of the mine without any assignment of duty to him by the present Manager as provided under Regulation 42 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of Regulation 41 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957, the duties and responsibilities of a Manager of Mine has been defined and described specifically for the purpose of proper functioning of the mine, whereas the duties and responsibilities of an Assistant Manager or under Manager have been defined or prescribed in Regulation 42 of the Mines Regulation, 1957 which provides that the Assistant Manager or under Manager shall carry out their duties as will be assigned to him by the Manager of the Mines and such assigned job is carried out in accordance with provisions of Act, Regulation and order made thereunder. 10. It is further submitted that in Regulation 42 (4) of the Coal Mines Regulation, it has been specifically described that in absence of Manager of Mine, the under Manager or the Assistant Manager shall have the same responsibility or duty as has been specified for the Manager under Regulation 41 of the Coal Mines Regulation. 11. In the premises of aforesaid factual and legal aspects, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was not warranted under law and the impugned judgment and orders are absolutely illegal and perverse which requires interference by way of this revision and is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for acquittal. 12. 11. In the premises of aforesaid factual and legal aspects, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was not warranted under law and the impugned judgment and orders are absolutely illegal and perverse which requires interference by way of this revision and is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for acquittal. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that there are concurrent findings of guilt of the petitioner for the alleged offence under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by way of this revision which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and in view of legal questions raised in this case, the assessment of evidence of witnesses and the exhibited documents have to be considered. P.W.-1 Md. Islam is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. According to his evidence, the victim bicycle rider was not colliery worker/staff and unauthorizedly used the mines road and fell down due to his own fault and negligence. He also admits that parapet wall made of stones was existing at the site, check post was also constructed and near the entrance gate, a sign board was also displayed showing “Unauthorized Entrance Prohibited”. P.W.-2 Ravindra Sharma is the complainant who in his cross-examination at para 2 has stated in clear terms that he has not inquired into the facts of the related accident and has not even visited the place of incident rather he has signed only on the complaint petition on the basis of inquiry report submitted by Dinesh Kumar Sahu (P.W.-3). P.W.-3 (Dinesh Kumar Sahu) is Director General of Mines Safety but admitted that he was working as Dy. Director of Mines. He has admitted about the factum of inquiry conducted by him about this incident. In the course of his evidence, he admits to have inquired the several witnesses but none of them have been examined during trial. 14. It further appears that in the complaint petition, present petitioner has been prosecuted as Assistant Manager and one R.S. Singh was shown as Manager of Mines who never appeared to face the trial and remained absconder. In the course of his evidence, he admits to have inquired the several witnesses but none of them have been examined during trial. 14. It further appears that in the complaint petition, present petitioner has been prosecuted as Assistant Manager and one R.S. Singh was shown as Manager of Mines who never appeared to face the trial and remained absconder. It further appears that P.W.-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that the Manager of the mines has failed to provide the check post, notice board or proper safety in the mine. Although, there is clear cut admission that agent of the mine H.N. Singh and the Manager R.S. Singh have violated the Rules and Regulations of the Mines Act under Coal Mines Regulation and the conditions of related permission letter. 15. It further appears that post-mortem report (Ex.-4) of the deceased shows that on dissection of the dead body of deceased, it was found and observed that deceased was in a drunken condition as alcoholic smell was available in his mouth. It also appears from exhibit 2/10 and 2/11 that on the relevant date of accident co-accused R.S. Singh was working in the capacity of Manager was present and sent the injured to Tisra Hospital for proper treatment by his own Jeep. 16. The entire evidence oral as well as documentary available on record does not show any contravention of the provisions of Mines Act, 1957, Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 or conditions of the alleged permission letter by the present petitioner rather due to absence of main co-accused persons responsible for the management of safety of the mines and prevent any untoward incident taking proper safety measures due to their absconding present petitioner has been held guilty by the learned Trial Court which has been upheld by the Appellate Court without taking pain to evaluate the entire materials available on record. Therefore, I find that the impugned judgment and orders are totally illegal perverse and not tenable under law which are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Petitioner is acquitted from the accusations levelled against him and set at liberty forthwith. 17. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court records be sent back to the Court concern for information.