Special statutory limitation barred mine safety prosecutions despite continuing default; convictions and fines were set aside.

Special statutory limitation governed prosecutions for failure to construct pit-head baths and creches, and the doctrine of continuing wrong could not override that specific time bar. Although the duty was treated as continuing, cognizance had to be taken within the prescribed period from the date of the offence or the Inspector's knowledge, whichever was later; the prosecutions were therefore time-barred. The mine's owner, agent and manager were regarded as constructively liable for the contraventions, and the later amendment naming agents and managers was treated as clarificatory. Continuation of the rules after repeal did not invalidate the cases, and prior acquittals did not bar proceedings for continuing defaults. Convictions and fines were set aside and the petitioners were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecutions for failure to construct pit-head baths and creches were barred by limitation and could be sustained as continuing offences; (ii) whether the agent and manager of the mine were liable for the contraventions along with the owner; (iii) whether the prosecutions were saved by the rules being continued in force after repeal and whether prior acquittals barred the present proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecutions for failure to construct pit-head baths and creches were barred by limitation and could be sustained as continuing offences.

Analysis: The statutory duty to construct the facilities was treated as a continuing obligation, but the special limitation provision required cognizance to be taken only within the prescribed period from the date of commission or from the date of knowledge of the Inspector, whichever was later. The general principle of a fresh period for a continuing wrong could not be used to nullify the special limitation provision. The prosecutions had been launched long after the Inspector had knowledge of the default.

Conclusion: The prosecutions were barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the agent and manager of the mine were liable for the contraventions along with the owner.

Analysis: The provisions imposing responsibility on the owner, agent and manager for lawful conduct of mine operations were read as creating constructive liability for contraventions of the Act and the rules. The later amendment expressly mentioning agents and managers was treated as clarificatory. On that construction, the agent and manager were also liable for the defaults in question.

Conclusion: The agent and manager were liable along with the owner.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecutions were saved by the rules being continued in force after repeal and whether prior acquittals barred the present proceedings.

Analysis: The rules framed under the repealed enactment were treated as continuing under the successor law, so the prosecutions were not invalid on that ground. Prior acquittals did not bar the present cases because the defaults were treated as continuing offences of a different period.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and fines were set aside and the petitioners were acquitted, because the prosecutions were instituted beyond the permissible period of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a specific limitation period for prosecution, the doctrine of continuing wrong cannot be invoked to extend limitation beyond that statutory period unless the statute itself so provides.

---