CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT – Labour law 2

SUBMITTED TO: Mrs. SUBARNA GOSH

ENROLMENT NO.: 312020021

BATCH: BBA-LLB (2020-25)

SEMESTER: 7

Case:- State Of Bihar vs Deokaran Nenshi on 24

August, 1972

Date of Judgment:- 24/08/1972

Citations:- 1973 AIR 908, 1973 SCR (3)1004

Bench:- Shelat, J.M. KHANNA, HANS RAJ

1
Facts:-

 The respondents are the owners of a stone quarry in Bombay and the failed to to
furnish the annual report of the the preceding year 1959 to Chief Inspector.
 They have not forwarded their annual returns of the preceding year in the forms
prescribed on or before the 21st January to the District Magistrate and to the Chief
Inspector therefore they are liable under Regulation (3) of the Indian Metalliferous
Mines Regulations, 1926.
 And they were also liable under section 661 of the Mines Act 1952, as they are
omitting to furnish the annual returns to Chief Inspector and liable to pay a fine which
may extend to Rs. 1,000/-.
 After a warning from Chief Inspector to furnish the annual returns they still didn’t
forwarded the annual returns, a complaint was filed in the court of Magistrate,
Dhanbad, on 12th April, 1961 under section 792 oh the Mines Act, 1952, No court shall
have cognizance of any offence under this Act (Mines Act).
 The question arises whether the offence committed by the respondent is covered under
section 79 of Mines Act or the court has Jurisdiction on this case or not?

Issue:-
1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1035561/
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/690731/

2
 1. Does both of the court, Dhanbad court or High Court, shall have jurisdiction on the
following case or not?
2. Does the respondent offence is an continuing offence or not?
3. Does the Act or omission of the respondent is covered under section 79 of Mines Act,
1952 or not and will the respondent be liable under section 66?

Rule:-

3
  Section 66 in The Mines Act, 1952:- Omission to furnish plans, etc.—Any person who,
without reasonable excuse the burden of proving which shall lie upon him, omits to
make or furnish in the prescribed form or manner or at or within the prescribed time
any plan, 1[section,] return, notice, register, record or report required by or under this
Act to be made or furnished, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to 2[one
thousand] rupees. The owner on the stone quarry will be liable under section 66, as he
had failed to furnished the annual report of the preceding year.
 Section 79 in The Mines Act, 1952:- Limitation of prosecutions.—No court shall take
cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof has been made:-

i. within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, or
ii. within six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence
came to the knowledge of the Inspector,
iii. (a):- in the case of continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be
computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence
continues;
- In this case the respondent had not committed an continuing offence as he had done
once and for all time offence.

Analysis:-

4
The Court delivered his judgment, Sec. 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 provides that any person
failure or omitting to furnish any return, notice etc. in the prescribed form or manner or at or
within the prescribed time required by or under the Act to be made or furnish shall be
punishable and liable for fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-. But, however section 793 lay-,
down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint
thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have
been committed or within six months from the date on which the alleged commission of the
offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, whichever is later. The Explanation to the
section provides that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation
shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence
continues and also under regulation 3 of the India Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1926, an
owner, agent or manager of every mine is required to forward to the District Magistrate and to
the Chief Inspector annual returns in respect of the preceding year in the forms prescribed
therein and on or before the 21st of January in each year. The respondents are the owners of a
stone quarry situate in Chandivali in Bombay. They failed to furnished annual returns to the
Chief Inspector for the year 1959 by the 21st of January, 1960. On March 28, 1960, the Chief
Inspector drew their attention to the failure to submit annual returns and warned the
respondents that if they failed to furnish the returns within two weeks from the date of the
letter, that is, by April 11, 1960, proceedings would be conducted against them under the Act.
Despite of the warning given to them they still didn’t furnished the returns, a complaint was
filed in the Court of the Magistrate, Dhanbad on April 12, 1961.

There were two questions arrises in the Trial Court in the High Court and also before us. The
first one was regarding the jurisdiction of ,the Court of Dhanbad or high court, and whether
the complaint will be dismissed by the limitation, it having been filed more than a year after
the default, which occurred on January 21, 1960 and the second question arise that whether
the respondent offence is an continuing offence or not? Both the ,questions go to the root of
the matter, for the first question whether court will have its jurisdiction or not? It is clearly
stated under section 79 of the Mines Act of 1972, that no court shall take cognizance of any
offence under this Act. So, the court will not have jurisdiction over it as the time has been
clearly barred. But, about the other question A continuing offence is one which is subject to

3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/690731/

5
continuance and distinguishable from and the once and for all offence is one of those offences
which arises out of a failure to Act or omitt a rule or its requirement and which involves a
penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or
complied with. On every such occasion the disobedience or non-compliance, occurs and
recurs, if the offence is committed. The difference between the two kinds of offences is
between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or
omission which continues and therefore. The ingredient continuing offence is continuance of
the offence which is absent in this case of an offence which takes place when an act or
omission is committed once and for all is not an continuing offence.

In State v. Laxmi Narain regulation 3 and under section 3 of the Mines Act makes failure to
furnish annual returns for the preceding year by the 31st of January of the succeeding year an
offence. The language of Reg. 3 clearly indicates that an owner, manager etc. of a mine would
be liable to the penalty if he were to commit an infringement of the Regulation and that
infringement consists in the failure to furnish returns on or before January 21 of the
succeeding year. The infringement therefore, occurs on January 21 of the relevant year and is
complete on the owner failing to furnish the annual returns by that day. The Regulation does
not lay down that the owner manager etc. of the mine concerned would be guilty of an offence
if he continues to carry on the mine without furnishing the returns or that the offence
continues until the requirement of Reg. 3 is complied with. In other words, Reg. 3 does not
render a continued disobedience or non- compliance of it an offence. As in the case of a
construction of a wall in violation of a rule or a bye-law of a local body, the offence would be
complete once and for all as soon as such construction is made, a default occurs in furnishing,
the returns by the prescribed date. There is nothing in Reg. 3 or in any other provision in the
Act or the Regulation which renders the continued non-compliance an offence until its
requirement is carried out.4  There is nothing in Regulation 3 or in any other provision in the
Act or the Regulation which are subject to continuing offence are non-compliance. The High
Court, in our view, was right in holding that the complaint was time barred as the offence in
question fell within the substantive part of section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952 and the appeals,
therefore, must fail and is dismissed.

Conclusion:-

4
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1853776/

6
It is an important case because in this case we came to know the difference between two kind
of offence which are once and for all offence and continuing offence, The main ingredient of
the continuing offence is continuance if there is absence main ingredient that is continuance
then that will be an once and for all offence. In this case the respondent will be liable under
section 66 Mines Act, 1952 and section 79 (3) (a) of Mines Act, 1952 will not been covered in
this case.