Vicarious criminal liability under mining law requires specific pleadings; administrative designation alone does not create deemed agency.

A complaint invoking vicarious criminal liability under the Mines Act must plead specific facts showing the accused's statutory role and connection with the offence. A bare assertion that a Chief General Manager exercised supervision, management and control, without particulars of what he did or how he acted for the mine owner, was insufficient to found cognizance or summons. A deeming provision for an agent also required material showing authorisation to act on behalf of the owner; administrative designation alone did not make the appellant a deemed agent. The prosecution could not therefore proceed on the pleadings, and the complaint was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal complaint disclosed the necessary averments to sustain cognizance and issuance of summons against the appellant under the Mines Act, 1952. (ii) Whether the appellant could be treated as a deemed agent so as to attract liability for the alleged contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal complaint disclosed the necessary averments to sustain cognizance and issuance of summons against the appellant under the Mines Act, 1952.

Analysis: A complaint seeking to fasten penal and vicarious liability must contain specific facts showing the accused's role in the alleged offence. A bald assertion that the appellant was the Chief General Manager and was exercising supervision, management and control, without stating how he acted or purported to act on behalf of the mine owner or what duties he performed, was insufficient. In the absence of any concrete allegation, the foundation for taking cognizance and issuing summons was missing.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose sufficient material to justify cognizance or summons against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could be treated as a deemed agent so as to attract liability for the alleged contravention.

Analysis: The statutory definition of agent and the deeming provision in the Coal Mines Regulations contemplated a person authorised to act, or purporting to act, on behalf of the owner in relation to management, control, supervision or direction of the mine. There was no material to show that the owner had submitted any statement authorising the appellant to act in that capacity, nor any basis to infer that his administrative position by itself made him a deemed agent. Penal provisions creating vicarious liability must be strictly construed in favour of the person proceeded against.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be treated as a deemed agent for the mine.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could not proceed against the appellant on the facts pleaded, and the criminal complaint was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions imposing vicarious criminal liability, the complaint must contain specific averments establishing the accused's statutory role and connection with the offence, and a deeming provision cannot be invoked in the absence of material showing lawful authority to act on behalf of the owner.

---