Jharkhand High Court
Shamindra Dalmia vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 21 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 3453 of 2019
Shamindra Dalmia, aged about 50 years, son of Late Shyam Sunder
Dalmiya, resident of Mahanta Basti, P.O. Keonjhar, P.S. Barbil, District
Deonjhar (Orissa) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
2. Mani Kant Prasad, Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control
Board, Jamshedpur, MB 15, New Housing Colony, Adityapur, P.O. &
P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella (Kharsawan), (Jharkhand)
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate
: Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate
: Mr. Piyush, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate
---
10/21.07.2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Gua P.S. Case
No. 63/2006 (corresponding to G.R. No. 511/2006), as against
the petitioner pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chaibasa, including the order of cognizance dated 12.03.2007
(Annexure-4) for offences under section 201, IPC r/w Section 37
of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa and such other and
further consequential or subsequent order passed therein."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of
inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board, the First Information
Report was instituted against as many as seven units, in which
directors/partners of the said units were also made accused.
4. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, his name had come at the
stage of investigation and was made accused subsequently on account of the
sole reason that the petitioner was the Manager of the company M/s Taurian
Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the allegations against the said
company and its director is at serial No. 4 of the FIR. The learned counsel
submits that the allegation is that the unit was installed without taking 'No
Objection' from the Pollution Control Board. He submits that the unit was
never found operational on the spot which is apparent from the inspection
report of the pollution control board , wherein it has been mentioned that unit
has been installed but has not been put into operation.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the charge-sheet ,
the company was never made an accused in the case and consequently, no
cognizance was taken against the company. He submits that the cognizance
has been taken on 12.03.2007 not only against the petitioner, but also the
Director of the company. The learned counsel submits that the company
having not been charge-sheeted and consequently not made an accused in the
case, the Director as well as the Manager cannot be made accused by way of
vicarious liability.
6. The learned counsel submits that so far as the case of the Director is
concerned, the same order taking cognizance has been quashed by this Court
vide judgment annexed at Annexure-1 to this petition being Cr. M.P. No.
1593/2007 decided on 12.12.2008. The learned counsel has also submitted
that the relevant provision of law has been considered by this Court and by
referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 661 (Anneta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., it
has been ultimately held by this Court that since the offence was alleged to
have been committed by the respective parties as could be deciphered from
the First Information Report itself and since cognizance has not been taken,
so far as the companies are concerned, the petitioners could not have been
vicariously prosecuted for the offences as alleged by the State Pollution
Control Board.
7. The learned counsel submits that the entire criminal case including the
order taking cognizance was set-aside by this Court. The case of the
petitioner is on identical footing as that of the director being Cr. M.P. No.
1593/2007 decided on 12.12.2008.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the
prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed
in the present case and it has been stated that the petitioner was a Manager
and he was responsible for taking all the statutory clearance, but it is not in
dispute that no cognizance has been taken against the company, in which the
petitioner is said to be the Manager. The learned counsel has also submitted
that in the case diary, it has come that the petitioner was making certain
cutting, but he is not in a position to satisfy as to how any act of such a
nature could be said to be an offence by the petitioner. Moreover, he is also
not in a position to satisfy this case as to how this case is different from the
case of the director
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the case of the
petitioner is on identical footing as that of the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No.
1593/2007- the director of the company. Against the director also,
cognizance was taken under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The only
distinguishable feature is that the present petitioner is the Manager and
petitioner of Cr. M.P. No. 1593/2007 was the Director of the company. The
fact remains that the company was never made an accused and also the fact
remains that at the time of inspection/allegation in the FIR, the unit was
found to have been installed, but admittedly was not put into operation. In
fact, the records indicate that the company was never charge-sheeted as an
accused in the case.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered and on identical footing as that of the petitioner in Cr. M. P. No.
1593/2007, which has been decided on 12.12.2018 and the case arises out of
the same FIR and same set of allegations. Accordingly, the entire criminal
proceedings as against the petitioner arising out of Gua P.S. Case No.
63/2006 dated 30.08.2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 511/2006 including
order of cognizance dated 12.03.2007 is hereby set-aside.
11. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below
through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
