Penal liability for illegal mineral extraction requires personal duty, statutory basis, or collusion; independent contractor acts alone are insufficient.

Penal liability under Section 228(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 for unauthorised mineral extraction cannot be imposed on a lessee merely because an independent contractor committed the extraction. The provision is quasi-criminal, but liability still requires that the person fall within the class made liable by statute or by a clear statutory or contractual duty; here, the contractor was not a servant or agent under direct control, and there was no proof of collusion, abetment, unlawful engagement, or any personal duty to prevent the breach, so the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 228(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 could be sustained against a lessee for illegal extraction of minerals by an independent contractor in the absence of mens rea, statutory duty, or proof of collusion or abetment.

Analysis: Section 228(7) is a penal provision enacted to prevent unauthorised extraction of minerals and operates as a quasi-criminal prohibition. Although such provisions may in some cases impose liability without proof of guilty mind, the Court held that the person proceeded against must still fall within the class made liable by the statute or by a clear statutory or contractual duty. On the facts, the contractor was found to be an independent contractor, not a servant or agent under the petitioner's direct control. The lease and the relevant mining law did not cast on the petitioner a personal duty to ensure that the contractor never acted in breach of Section 228(7). There was also no material proving that the petitioner employed the contractor for an unlawful act, engaged an incompetent contractor, or colluded in the illegal extraction.

Conclusion: The penalty on the petitioner could not be upheld, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: A lessee is not liable under Section 228(7) merely because an independent contractor unlawfully extracted minerals, unless the statute, contract, or proved facts establish personal responsibility, collusion, or another recognised basis of liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal liability for unauthorised mineral extraction under Section 228(7) cannot be imposed on a person for the act of an independent contractor unless the statute creates such liability or there is proof of a personal duty, authorised participation, or collusion.

---