Jharkhand High Court

Prashant Kashyap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                               (2025:JHHC:34457)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.3976 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. Rajeev Ranjan @ 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, Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Forester, Hazaribagh Forest Area, P.O. and P.S. - Hazaribagh,

District- Hazaribagh ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioners       : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, 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 proceedings of

Complaint Case (F) No.33 of 2021 renumbered as G (F) Case No.33 of

2021 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 offence punishable under

Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3 (A) and 3 (B) of the

Wildlife Protection Act.

(2025:JHHC:34457)

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

Supreme Court of India has approbated the statement of two Judge

(2025:JHHC:34457)

Bench that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a

prosecution against the company owning the industrial unit but, regard

being had to the factual matrix, namely, the technical fault on the part

of the company to furnish the requisite information called for by the

Board, directed for making a formal amendment by the applicant and

substitute the name of the owning industrial unit; and submits that in

this case, N.T.P.C. has not been arrayed as an accused and the

petitioners are only the officers of N.T.P.C., Hazaribagh. It is lastly

submitted that the similar prayer of the petitioners, has already been

allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 10th of September, 2025

passed in Cr.M.P. No.3977 of 2022. It is lastly submitted that the prayer,

as prayed for by the petitioners, be allowed.

6. Learned P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the

prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and 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 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 petitioners

(2025:JHHC:34457)

but the petitioners never appeared before the complainant. Their

contention that they have not received any notice from the complainant,

is at best the 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 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

there was no provision of vicarious liability, is not applicable to the

facts of the case.