UNION OF INDIAversusSH. AB. SHAH AND ORS.

                                                                                 )-




A                             UNION OF INDIA
                                    v.
                          SH. AB. SHAH AND ORS.

                                  MAY 9, 1996

B             [B.L. HANSARIA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

         Mines Act, 1952-Sections 73, 79, Explanation (a)-Coal Mines
  Regulations 1957-Regulation No. 100(1)-Conditions imposed for depil/ar-
  ing-To be obeyed always-Othenvise a continuing offence-Held, action in-
C itiated subsequently is not bmTed by limitation.

          Words and Phrase~"At any time"-Explained as "at any point of time".

        The Respondent-Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. through their agent obtained
  permission from the D.G., Mines Safety on 2.1.1971 to split pillars in
D conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seam in the area. The
  conditions 5 & 6 imposed for the same were modified on 14.6.1971, at the
  instance of the agent. The Coal Mines was taken over by the Central            •
  Government and vested in the Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973. On an
  inspection by the Dy. Director of Mines on 2.4.1974, certain violations were
E found and the agent was called upon to explain the violation. Though a
  reply was received from the agent, no explanation was received from
  Respondent No. 1 On a further inspection on 26.8.1975 the Dy. Director
  found that the violation was continuing. As the concerned persons had
  not compiled with the conditions subject to which the splitting of pillars
  in conjunction with hydraulic sand §towing was granted, the Inspector filed
F a complaint in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, alleging
  contravention of the conditions of permission. Respondents 1 to 4 raised
  two preliminary objections viz., that the complaint was barred by limita-
  tion prescribed under Section 79 of the Act and that in any case respondent
  Nos. 1 to 4 were not in management of the coal mines in question when the
G alleged offence was alleged to have been committed and therefore they
  could not be criminally proceeded with. The trial court accepted the
  contentions and acquitted Respondents 1 to 4.

        On appeal, the High Court confirmed the acquittal accepting the
  same contentions. The High Court held that the breach of any of the
H conditions imposed for depillaring by itself is not punishable since the
                                    620
                           U.O.L "·AB. SHAH                               621

grant of permission on 2.l.1971'was not an "order" made under the Act of A
1952, that stowing with sand is intended as an integral part of the opera-
tion of splitting pillars and that the words "at any time" contained in
Condition No. 6 necessarily imply during the operation of the splitting and
therefore the ofi'ence is not a continuing one as it is completed as soon as
splitting or depillaring is. commenced or conducted or carried out in
                                                                             B
breach of any of the conditions on which permission to depillar was
granted.

      In appeal to this Court, it was contended by Appellant that the trial
court as well as the High court grossly erred in not accepting the conten-
tion that the offence committed by the Respondents being continuing,in           C
nature falling under explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952,
the complaint was not barred by time, that the High Court having rightly
noted that out of lll conditions non-compliance of condition Nos. 3 and 6
would fall under "continuing offence", fell into error in holding that all the
conditions must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively, and that if
the offence is a "continuing offence" falling under Explanation (a) to           D
Section 79 of the Act then notwithstanding the fact that Respondents No.
1 to 4 were not in office when the offence was first detected, they are
answerable to the charges levelled against them.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court                                            E
      HELD : 1. The conditions 3 & 6 imposed for depillaring are not only
relatable but the unstowing required for the length must exist always,
                                      11
disobedience of which shall become continuing offence". So even if other
conditions are held to be falling under completed offence, violation of
condition Nos. 3 & 6 cannot be so treated as to invoke the time limit            F
prescribed under Section 79 of the Mines Act 1952. The charge framed is
not barred by limitation. In view of the above conclusion, the plea taken
by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that they were not the concerned officers when
the offence was detected, will not hold water. The preliminary objections
raised by them cannot be sustained. [630-A-C)                                    G
      State of Bihar v. Dev Karan, AIR (1973) SC 908, relied on.

      2. The conditions 3 and 6 are not only relatable to what was required
at the commencement of depillaring process but the unsto\\ing for the
required length must exist always. In this context, the expression "at any H
    622                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   time11 mentioned in condition No. 6, has to mean, in the context in which
    it has been used, "at any point of time" the effect of which is that the
    required length must be maintained all the time. [629-D-E]

          Lucknow Development Autho1ity v. M.K. Gupta, [1994] 1 SCC 243,
    referred to.
B
          Black's Law Dictionary, Stroud's "Judicial Dictionmy" Vol. I IV Edn.
    Pg. 145 to 153, referred to.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    463 of 1983.
c
         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.81 of the Bombay High
    Court in Cr!. A. No. 24 of 1981.

          Tara Chandra Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao and Ms. Niranjana Singh for
    the appellant.
D
          L.K. Pandey for the Respondent Nos. 1-4.

          S.M. Jadhav and D.M. Nargolakar, for the Respon\ient No. 5.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
E
         K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal
    Appeal no. 24/81 dated 26.8.1988 on the file of Bombay High Court
    (Nagpur Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.

          The appellant preferred a complaint under section 73 of the Mines
F Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Regulation No.
    100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the
    Regulation"). The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be stated
    in brief to appreciate the contentions raised before us. The facts are as
    under:

G       Kamptee Colliery originally was owned by the. Oriental Coal Com-
  pany Limited. At the instance of the agent of Oriental Coal Company
  Limited, the Director General of Mines safety granted permission on
  2.1.1971 under Regulation 100(1) of the Regulations to split pillars in
  conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seem in the area. Later
H on, the agent of the Oriental Coal Company Limited applied for certain
              U.0.1. v. AB. SHAH [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.]               623

modifications in conditions Nos. 5 and 6 which was granted on 14.6.1971. A
Subsequently, on 30.1.1973, the possession of the coal mines was taken over
by the Central Government and the ownership of the said coal mines vested
in the Coal Mines Authority on 9.8.1973. The Deputy Director of Mines at
Nagpur made an inspection oh 2.4.1974 and found that the sizes of split
galleries were about 8.2 metres. It was in violation of condition No. 1 B
imposed by the Director of Mines Safety. The agent was called upon to
explain the violation by the Joint Director of Mines Safety by his letter
dated 30.4.1974. A reply was sent on 13.5.1974. Explanation was called for
from respondent No. 1 on 10.8.1974. No reply was received, inspite of
several reminders. The Deputy Director of Mines Safety again inspected C
the mines in question on 26.8,1975, along with the agent, and found the
violation of condition No. 1 continuing and also found that the adjacent
galleries were not kept stowed of the pillar where splitting had commenced.
After the taking over of mines as mentioned above, the coal mine in
question formed part of the Western Coal Fields Limited. As the con-
cerned persons had not complied with the conditions subject to which the D
splitting of pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing was granted,
the Inspector (now, Deputy Director of Mines) filed a complaint in the ·
Court of Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Ramtak, Nagpur, alleging con-
travention of the conditions of permission The Trial court framed charges
accordingly to which respondent Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed E
to be tried. Two principal contentions were advanced in defence before
the Trial Court. They were that the complaint was barred by limitation
prescribed under Section .79 of the Act and in any ease, respondent Nos.
1 to 4 were not in management of the coal mines in question when the
alleged offence was alleged to have been committed and, therefore, they F
could not be criminally proceeded against.

      The learned Trial Judge accepted both the contentions of respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 and consequently acquitted them. On appeal preferred by the
appellant, the High Court also confirmed the acquittal accepting the same
contentions. Hence the present appeal.                                      G

       Before dealing with the question of law that arises for our considera-
tion, we want to express our anguish that we did not get the required
assistance in this case. The appellant except filing the judgment of the High
Court and the grounds for special leave did not take any step, inspite of H
    624                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A passing of 13 years, to file other important relevant pa.pers to help the
    Court in deciding the issue, i.e. the judgment of the Trial Court, the charge
    sheet filed in the Trial Court, the evidence-both oral and documentary,
    reply given by the agent for the initial notice etc. They are all required to
    fully appreciate the issue raised before us. The further agony is that inspite
B   of notices served on the respondents, none appeared before us to answer
    the contentions raised in this Appeal. In this state of affairs, we have
    decided the issue on the basis of the typed judgment of the High Court
    which alone is made available, apart from the grounds in the special leave
    petition.

c          The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
    Trial Court as well as the High Court grossly erred in not accepting the
    contention put forward on behalf of the complainant/appellant that the
    offence committed by the respondents being 'continuing' in nature falling
    under Explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Act, the complaint was not
D   barred by time. He also submitted that the High Court having rightly noted
    that out of 10 conditions, non-compliance of condition Nos. 3 and 6 would
    fall under 'continuing offence', fell into an error in holding that all the
    conditions must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. If the offence
    is a 'continuing offence' falling under Explanation (a) to Section 79 o~ the
E   Act, then notwithstanding the fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not in
    office when the offence was first detected, they are answerable to the
    charges levelled against them.


          We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Before going to
    the actual question, it is necessary to set out the conditions subject to which
F   the permission was granted. As the document was not typed and produced
    before us, we arc setting out the relevant portion from the judgment of the
    High Court which reads as follows :


                 "By the letter ex. 27 dated 2nd January 1971, the Director
G            General of Mines Safety granted to the Agent of the Messrs.
             Oriental Coal Company Limited, Kamptee Colliery "permission
             under regulation 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 to
             split pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1
             seam in the area indicated in plan No. I Dep/15/70 dated 26.6.70
H            at Kamptee Colliery" subject to the following conditions :
      U.O.l. v. AB.SHAH [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.]                         625

1. Each pillar shall be divided into four equal stooks by central dip       A
and level splits. For different depths, the maximum and minimum
dimensions of galleries and stooks respectively shall be as follows:

For depth              Gallery which           Stooks shall
not exceeding          shall not exceed        be less than
                                                                            B
 60 metres             5.4·metres              5 mts. x 5 mts.
 90 metres             5.4 metres              6.6 mts. x 6.6 mts.
120 metres             5.4 metres              9 mts. x 9 mts.
153 metres             4.8 metres              10.5 mts. x 10.5 mts.

   2. The final height of original and split galleries shall not
                                                                            c
exceed 3.6 meters.

   3. After splitting is completed all original and split galleries
shall be stowed solid with sand.
                                                                            D
    4. Not more than two pillars shall be under splitting at any time
in a panel.

   5. A pillar shall not be split unless all original and split galleries
on the inby~ side have been fully stowed.
                                                                            E
    6. Not more than a total length of 45 metres of split shall be
left unstowed at any time in a whole panel. (Emphasis added)

    7. Before starting splitting of pillars in a panel, it shall be
insolated by stoppings in compliance with the provisions of regula-
tion 100(4) of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957, and an intimation           F
to that effect shall be sent to this Directorate and the Joint Director
of Mines Safety. These stopping shall be constructed to the
specifications laid down in this Directorate Circular No. 17of1964
as modified by Circular No. 1 of 1968.
                                                                            G
    8. No splitting or reduction of pillars shall be done beneath and
in the vicinity of dwelling/building or public road, if any, likely to
be affected by the splitting operations.

   9. In the event of any change in the circumstances connected
with this splitting permission, which is likely to affect the safety of H
    626                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           the \Vork persons or the mine or the surface features, an intimation
            shall be sent immediately to this Directorate and the Joint Director
            of Mines, Safety and splitting operations shall be stopped. The
            splitting of pillars shall not be resumed, except with permission in
            writing from the Director General of Mines Safety.

B              10. The above permission may be amended or withdrawn at
            any time, if considered necessary.

                By letter ex. 28 dated 8th April 1971, the Agent of the Oriental
            Coal Company, Kamptec Colliery applied to the Director Genera.I
            of Mines Safety, for certain modifications in conditions No. 5 and
c           6 of the above conditions and by the letter Ex. 31 dated 14.6.1971
            the Director General of Mines, Safety accepted the proposal and
            modified these conditions. These modified conditions were as
            follows :

D               Condition No. 5:

                A pillar shall not be completely split unless all original and split
            galleries on the inbye side have been fully stowed. (i.e. the word
            "completely" was added) and

E               Condition No. 6:

               Not more than 150 metres of split galleries shall be left un-
            stowed at anytime in the whole panel. (i.e. the figure" 150 metres"
            was substituted for the original words "45 metres").

F          It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that it accepted that
    violation uf condition Nos. 3 and 6 would constitute 'continuing offence' in
    the light of Sections 73 and 79 of the Act read with Regulation 100 of the
    Regulations. The High Court however held as follows :

                "Here, Shri Bobde for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 very rightly
G           pointed out that the gist of the offence alleged under Section 73
            of the Mines Act, 1952 in the present case is 'dipillaring' in breach
            of the conditions contained in Ex. 27 dated 2.1. 1971 and not the
            breach of the said conditions themselves. Analysing the provisions
            of Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952, it was pointed out that the
H           section contemplates 3 categories of contraventions made punish·
                       •
     U.0.1. v. A.B. SHAH [K VENKATASWAMI, J.]                   627

able thereunder :                                                      A
   (a) Contravention of any provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, or

   (b) Contravention of any regulation, rule or bye-law made
under the Mines Act, 1952 (i.e. subordinate legislation), or
                                                                       B
    ( c) contravention of any order made under any provisions of
the Mines Act, 1952 or under any regulation, rule or bye-law made
under the Mines Act, 1952 (i.e. contravention of order made under
any subordinate legislation under the Mines Act, 1952).

    The ,present was not a case falling under the category (a) or
                                                                       c
(c) above. There was no order made in writing as would come
\vithin the ambit of category (c). The permission Ex. 27 dated
2.1.1971 was not an "order" made under the Mines Act, 1952 or
under the provisions of any subordinate legislation thereunder.
Shri Bobde pointed out instances of provisions for making of such      D
orders by reference to section 22 and 72(b) of the Mines Act, 1952
and to Regulations Nos. 65, 101, 103 and 128 of the Coal Mines
Regulations 1957. Shri Bobde is entirely right in these contentions.
The gist of the offence alleged in the present case is "depillaring"
in contravention of the conditions in Ex. 27 dated 2.1.1971 9n which   E
permission to depillar was granted. Breach of any of these condi-
tions by itself is not punishable under Section 73 of the Mines Act,
1952."

   The High Court further held in paragraph 12 as under :
                                                                       F
"Here Shri Bobde vety rightly pointed out that the ten conditions
contained in the letter Ex. 27 dated 2.1.71 have to be read together
as a whole and not one or two of them separately and in isolation
without the context. These ten are the composite conditions on
which permission lo depillar is granted. Shri Bobde drew my
attention to the title mentioned at the subject of the letter Ex. 27 G
dated 2.1.71 which in essence is "permission - to split pillars in
conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing -" stowing with sand is,
therefore, intended as an integral part of the operation of splitting
pillars, i.e. depillaring and does not stand on its own independent
basis. Shri Bobde pointed out that there is no revision in the Mines H
    628                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           Act, 1952 or the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 under which the
            running of a mine with a failure to stow after depillaring is itself
            made an offence. The charge in the present case is in respect of
            breach of regulation 100(1), the subject of which is "Depillaring
            operation", in essence the t:harge is "Depillaring or splitting in
                                                                 1
                                                                  '
                                                                      11        11



            breach of the conditions on which permission to split pillars was
B           granted vide letter Ex. 27 dated 2.1.1971."

                So far as condition No. 6 is concerned, the High Court held as
            follows:

                !!Therefore the \VOrds uat any time 11 contained in condition No.
c           6" not more than 150 metres of split galleries shall be left unstowed
            at any time in the whole panel'' necessarily imply "during the
            operation of splitting", and are not indicative of a state of continuity
            in the mines year after the splitting is completed, as a continuing
            contravention punishable under Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952,
D           read with Regulation 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957.
            The offence is, therefore, not a continuing one, it is completed as
            soon as splitting or depillaring is conunenced or conducted or
            carried out in breach of any of the conditions on which permission
            to depillar was granted."
E
          Now; the issue is whether the High Court was right in coming to the
    conclusion that the offence was not a 'continuing offence' on the main
    ground that all the conditions must be read together.

          In State of Bihar v. Dev Karan, AIR (1973) SC 908 this Court had the
F occasion to consider the meaning of 'continuing offence' falling under
    Explanation (a) to Section 79 of the Act. This Court held as follows in para
    5:

                "Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance
            and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and
G           for all. It is one of those offences which arise out of a failure to
            obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involve
            a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its
            requirement is obeyed or complied with. On evory occasion that
            such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs there is
H           the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of
               U.0.l. v.AB.SHAH[K.VENKATASWAM!,J.]                         629

         offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence      A
         once and for all and an act or omission which continues and
         therefore constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on
         which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is
         thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent
         in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission
                                                                                  B
         is committed once and for all."

      Bearing the above principle in mind, we have to find out whether the
offence committed. by the respondents, in particular violation of conditions
Nos. 3 and 6, could be treated as 'continuing offence' or completed offence.
To appreciate this, we must also bear in mind the object and purpose of           c
the Act. This we can get from the long title which reads "An act to amend
and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safely in
n1ines. 11

       If we look into condition Nos. 3 and 6 with the object and purpose         D
of the Act in mind, it has to be held that these conditions are not only
relatab1e to what was required at the commencement of dcpillaring of
process, but the unstowing for the required length must exist always. The
expression "at any time" ~inding place in condition No. 6 has to mean, in
the context in which it has been used, "at any point of time", the effect of
which is that the required length must be maintained all the time. The            E
accomplishment of object of the Act, one of which is safety in the mines,
requires taking of such a view, especially in the backdrop of repeated mine
disasters which have been taking, off and on, heavy toll of lives of the
miners. It may be pointed out that the word "any" has a diversity of meaning
and in Black's 'Law Dictionary' it has been stated that this word may be
employed to indicate "all11 or 11 every11 , and its meaning will depend 11 upon   F
the context and subject matter of the statute". A reference to what has been
stated in Stroud's 'Judicial Dictionary' Vol. I, is revealing inasmuch as the
import of the word "any" has been explained from pages 145 to 153 of the
4th Edition, a perusal of which shows it has different connotations
depending primarily on the subject matter of the statute and the context          G
of its use. A Bench of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.
Gupta, [1994] 1 SCC 243, gave a very wide meaning to this word finding
place in the section 2( o) of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 defining
"service". (See para 4).

      We, therefore, hold that the aforesaid conditions have to be obeyed H
    630                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A always, disobedience of which shall become "continuing offence," in the
    light of what has been stated in the decision of Dev Karan (supra). So, even
    if other conditions are held to be falling; under completed offence, violation
    of condition Nos. J and 6 cannot be so treated as to invoke the time limit
    prescribed under Section 79 of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to differ
    from the view taken by the High Court and hold that violation of conditions
B   Nos. 3 and 6 are 'continuing offences' and the charge framed is not barred
    by limitation. Once this conclusion is reached, the plea taken by respondent
    Nos. 1 to 4 that they were not the concerned officers when the offence was
    detected, will not hold water. Consequently, the preliminary objection
    raised by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be sustained.
c
         The appeal is therefore, allowed. The matter is remanded to the Trial
    Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

    V.M.                                                         Appeal allowed.