Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Kashyap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:34748)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3942 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, 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 : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, 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 proceedings of
Complaint Case (F) No.35 of 2021 renumbered as G (F) Case No.35 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 offences punishable under
Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3 (A) and 3 (B) of the
Wildlife Protection Act.
(2025:JHHC:34748)
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 offences.
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 judgement of the two Judge
(2025:JHHC:34748)
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, 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
prosecution against them is not sustainable. 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 Spl.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
(2025:JHHC:34748)
the case of the prosecution that though the complainant issued notice to
the petitioners but the petitioners never appeared before the
complainant. Their contention that they have not received any notice
from the complainant, is at best a defence of the petitioner but that can
only be agitated during a full-dress trial of the case and 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
(2025:JHHC:34748)
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.35 of 2021 as has 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.
10. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief
granted vide order dated 16.01.2023, is vacated.
11. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th of November, 2025
AFR/ Madhav
Uploaded on- 26/11/2025
