The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5404 OF 2023 Palle Buchi Reddy …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P. K. Maharaj, ASC Mr. J. Nayak, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 05. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 26.02.2024 Heard. The Petitioner has filed the present petition by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 30.10.2023 in 2 (c) C.C. Case No.24 of 2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Hemagir, whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 72C (1) (a) & (b) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the cognizance order is bad in law because the Court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after the period of six Page 1 of 6 months as contemplated under Section 79 of the Mines Act. However, the learned Court below by employing general provision under Section 468 Cr.P.C. has allowed the application of the prosecution and condoned the delay of eighteen days in filing the complaint case. Mr. Mohanty, has relied upon various judgments including the judgment in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I. reported in MANU/SC/7020/2008 and submits that once there is a specific provision contemplated under a special statute, the provision of general law should not be employed to condone the delay. He relies upon paragraphs-8, 9 and 15 of the judgment, which reads as under:- <8. Thus, the Act is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas Section 104 CrPC authorizes the court to impound document or thing produced before it. Where there is a special Act dealing with specific subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. As the Passports Act is a special Act, the rule that <general provision should yield to the specific provision= is to be applied.= 9. The Act being a specific Act whereas Section 104 CrPC is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that section in the CrPC as regards the passport. Thus, by necessary to impound any document or thing produced before it would exclude passport. 15. In our opinion, even the court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 CrPC states that the court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the court to the power of court implication, Page 2 of 6 is because impound any document or thing other than a passport. This impounding of a <passport= is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while CrPC is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law Statutory vide G.P. Interpretation (9th Edn., p. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the court under Section 104 CrPC though it can impound any other document or thing.= Principles Singh's of 4. Per contra, Mr. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 relies upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of State (Union of India (UOI) vs. V.L. Jain and Ors. reported in MANU/MP/0027/1982. Mr. Nayak submits that the limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the Act could only be recounted from the day, the offence is discovered. He relies upon at page-4 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- < It was contended that an accident occurred on 9th of March 1973 resulting in the death of a worker and the complaint was filed under section 72-C(1) and punishment is sought under this provision for the loss of life and in this view of the matter, it could not be said that the offence took place on any other date except 9th of March 1973, and as the complaint was presented on 15th of September 1973, it was the period of six months presented beyond prescribed under section 79 of the Mines Act. The complaint was filed for an offence under section 72-C(1)(a) and (b) and in the body of the complaint what has been stated is that on receiving the information about the accident on 9th of March 1973, an enquiry was conducted on 12th, 16th of March Page 3 of 6 1973 and 14th April 1973 and it is further stated that as a result of this enquiry, it was found that there was non-compliance with the directions made with regard to the security and it is alleged that the offence alleged the directions with regard to the security and as this non- compliance has resulted in the loss of life, sentence under (sic) Clause (a) of Section 72-C reads:4 the non-compliance of is <72-C. Special provision for contravention of law with dangerous results.4 (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, shall be punishable4 (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 injury but in or about (c) if such contravention otherwise causes injury or danger to persons employed in the mine or other persons the mine, with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.= A reading of this provision makes it clear that the offence does not lie in the loss of life is or serious bodily contravention of any provision of this Act, regulation, rule, bye-law or any order made for thereunder. Clauses punishment and it has been provided that where such non-compliance results in loss of life enhanced punishment is permissible. Similarly, when this enhanced results in punishment this provision, therefore, clearly goes to show that the offence is not the loss of life or serious bodily injury but the offence is non-compliance with the order or serious bodily is permissible. A reading of (b) provide the offence (a) and injury, Page 4 of 6 in facts made direction made under this Act or disobedience of rules or bye-laws. In the light of this provision coupled with the the complaint allegations of constituting the offence, it is clear that what was alleged was the offence of non-compliance with the orders or directions with regard to the security measures and this is clearly stated in the complaint to have been discovered when enquiry was made after receiving the information of the accident on 12th, 16th March and 14th April 1973. It is, therefore, clear that after the enquiry was completed on 14th April 1973 that the offence was discovered and it is, therefore, clear that it is for this offence discovered on 14th April 1973 that a complaint was filed on 7th of September 1973.= 5. I have perused the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against the Petitioner. Paragraph-3(b) reads as under:- to the the offence came <3(b) Date when knowledge of the inspector On 11.04.2023 at about 09:45 Hrs. Sri P. Buchi Reddy, Area General Manager of Basundara Area informed the undersigned telephonically that a fatal accident had occurred in the mine at about 07:45 hrs on that day. The Director General of Mines Safety, directed the undersigned to conduct an inquiry into the causes and circumstances accident. The mine connected with management had submitted Form-IVA through email dated 15.04.2023. As directed, undersigned reached the area on 11.04.2023, inspected the site of the accident on 13.04.2023 and conducted enquiry into the causes and circumstances leading to the accident on 12 to 15.04.2023 and 17 to 19.05.2023.= the Page 5 of 6 6. Perusal of other documents apart from the complaint reveals that the offence is admittedly committed on 11.04.2023 and the complaint has been filed belatedly on 30.10.2023. 7. I am of the considered view that the impugned order would not sustainable the scrutiny of law in view of the fact that the learned trial Court has not considered the application for condonation of delay taking into consideration the special provision under the Mines Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 in 2 (c) C.C. Case No.24 of 2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Hemagir is set aside. The matter is relegated back to the learned Court below to decide the application for condonation of delay moved by the Opposite Party No.2 in the light of the provisions of Section 79 of the Mines Act and the parties are given liberty to raise all the points available to them at that stage of taking cognizance. 8. The CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Feb-2024 11:12:59 Page 6 of 6