Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Kashyap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:34394 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3935 of 2022
------
1. Prashant Kashyap, s/o Sh. R.D.S. Kashyap, aged about 61 years,
r/o D-2, Shalimar Garden, Kolar Road, Huzur, P.O. & P.S. Kolar
Road, District Bhopal MP 462042
2. Rajiv Ranjan s/o Late Sri Gauri Prashad Mishra aged about 59
years, r/o PVUNL, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh District Ramgarh
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ram Chander Prasad, Forester, Son of Not Known to the
Petitioner, Hazaribagh Forest Area, P.O. and P.S. - Hazaribagh,
District- Hazaribagh ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
: Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case (F) No.2486 of 2020 renumbered as G (F) Case No.2486 of
2020 as also the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh
has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 33 of the
I.F. Act and Section 3 (A) and 3 (B) of the W.L.P. Act.
( 2025:JHHC:34394 )
3. The brief fact of the case is that by destroying the saplings with the
Hywa vehicle, N.T.P.C. without the permission of any competent
authority, indulged in transportation of coal by crushing the saplings on
the way, inside the forest area and it is also alleged that N.T.P.C. has
committed encroachment and is involved in illegal transportation. It is
alleged that the petitioner No.1 who is the Executive Director and the
petitioner No.2 who is the Additional General Manager, were involved in
this offence, as by their direction/concurrence, the offence has been
committed. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the
D.F.O., West Forest Division, Hazaribagh the learned S.D.J.M.,
Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the said offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. K. Alagh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 and submits that
therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that in the absence of any provision laid down under a
statute, a Director of a company or an employee cannot be held to be
vicariously liable for any offence committed by the company itself;
relying upon its own judgment in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy vs.
R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya reported in (2006) 10 SCC 581.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aneeta Hada vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC
661 and submits that in paragraph-52 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
( 2025:JHHC:34394 )
Supreme Court of India has approbated the judgement of two Judges
Bench that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution
against the company owning the industrial unit but having regard to the
factual matrix, namely, the technical fault on the part of the company to
furnish the requisite information called for by the Board, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in that case directed for making a formal
amendment by the applicant and substitute the name of the owning
industrial unit; and submits that in this case, as N.T.P.C. has not been
arrayed as an accused and the petitioners are only the officers of
N.T.P.C., Hazaribagh, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for
by the petitioners, be allowed.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. but fairly submits
that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has committed an error in referring
the Act in respect of Sections 3A and 3B as "W.L.P. Act" instead of
mentioning the correct Act of the said sections, to be the "Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980". It is next submitted by the learned Spl.P.P.
that the Section 3B (b) envisages a vicarious liability for every person
who at the time of offence committed, was directly in-charge of the
authority. It is next submitted that there is no material in the record nor
even it is the case of the petitioners that they are not the directly in-
charge and responsible to the authority concerned being the N.T.P.C. for
conduct of business of the authority. It is further submitted that it is the
case of the prosecution that though the complainant issued notice to the
( 2025:JHHC:34394 )
petitioners but the petitioners never appeared before the complainant.
Their contention that they have not received any notice from the
complainant, is at best their defence, that can only be agitated during a
full-dress trial of the case but the same cannot be a ground to be
considered at this stage. Hence, it is submitted that the case be remanded
to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the matter of
cognizance.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has
committed a grave illegality by referring the Act in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 3A and 3B to be of the "W.L.P. Act" which may
be an acronym for the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but the undisputed
fact remains that the prosecution report was submitted in respect of the
offences punishable under Sections 3A and 3B of the "Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. Section 3B (b) of the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980", which casts a vicarious liability upon every person, who at the
time of the offence committed, was directly in charge of and was
responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the business of the
authority, as well as the authority. Hence, in view of this vicarious
liability, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in the cases of S. K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others (supra) and Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours
Private Limited (supra), which were in respect of the offences for which
( 2025:JHHC:34394 )
there was no provision of vicarious liability, is not applicable to the facts
of the case.
8. Considering the fact that there is error in respect of the offences
mentioned in the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Hazaribagh in G (F) Case No.2486 of 2020 as rightly been submitted by
the learned Special Public Prosecutor and already mentioned above in
the foregoing paragraph of this judgement, the same is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Hazaribagh to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent
only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th of November, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded 24/11/2025
