Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand on 31 July, 2014
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.800 of 2009
With
Cr.M.P No.802 of 2009
With
Cr.M.P No.804 of 2009
Krishna Kumar Poddar ...... Petitioner
(in three cases)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
Mr. Janak Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------
5/31.7.2014Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in C.F Case Nos. 351 of 2006, 358 of 2006 & 350 of 2006, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against him in the said cases.
3. The offence reports in all these three cases show that on 30.4.2005, 2.5.2005 & 25.4.2005, the Forest Guard found that some labours were engaged in mining process in the protected forest and upon objection by the forest guard, they did not stop the mining work. Accordingly, the offence reports were submitted by the forest guard. The petitioner is not named in the said reports. Subsequently, the prosecution reports were submitted after enquiry, in which, the petitioner has been made accused being the proprietor of Chotanagpur Graphite Industries, which was found to be engaged in the mining process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point in challenging the impugned order, submitting that there is no provision for vicarious liability in the Indian Forest Act and accordingly, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, including the cognizance orders, cannot be -2- sustained in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Md. Fasiuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr. reported in 2012 (3) JCR 602 (Jhr.), wherein, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in S.K. Alagh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 and in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479, it has been held as follows :-
"9. Thus, so far as the cognizance against these petitioners of the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is concerned, the case is fully covered by the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein, it has been specifically held that wherever legal fiction of the vicarious liability is directed against a person, who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of the offence, is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the Statute concerned. In Section 33 of the Forest Act, there is no provision for any vicarious liability and accordingly, in absence of any specific averment / allegation against the petitioners in the prosecution reports, the institution of the cases against these petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the cognizance taken against them under the said Act are absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in these cases only being the proprietor of Chotanagpur Graphite Industries and he was not actually present at the place of occurrence and accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner being the proprietor of the Chotanagpur Graphite Industries, which was involved in the illegal mining in the protected forest, is also liable for the offence.
-3-
6. After having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the records, I find that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Md. Fasiuddin's case (supra). It is apparent from the offence reports dated 30.4.2005, 2.5.2005 & 25.4.2005 that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and there is no allegation against him therein, nor is he named therein. Only in the prosecution reports the petitioner had been made accused, being the proprietor of Chotanagpur Graphite Industries, without making any specific averment or allegation against him.
7. In that view of the matter, there being no provision for any vicarious liability in the Indian Forest Act, I am of the considered view that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in C.F Case Nos. 351 of 2006, 358 of 2006 & 350 of 2006, so far as they relate to the petitioner only, as also the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the said cases, are hereby, quashed.
8. All these applications are accordingly, allowed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) B.S/