Jharkhand High Court
Yogendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 811 of 2009
Yogendra Singh, son of late Hira Singh, resident of
Village Murma, P.O. Satbarba, P.S. Daltonganj,
District Palamau ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi
For the State : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A. P. P.
---
Order No. 08 Dated 12th February , 2015
Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned counsel for the State. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.F. Case No. 358 of 2006 including the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
It appears that on 2.5.2005, the Forest Guard of Kathotia protected forest has submitted a complaint in which it was alleged that on 30.4.2005 at the time of inspection of the protected forest, the Forest Guard came to know that illegal mining of graphite is going on. It has been further alleged that when he asked the Manager to stop the work till measurement is made, he refused to stop the work and ultimately a case was instituted under the Forest Act.
After the prosecution report was submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, an order was passed on 8.12.2006 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution case does not disclose any allegation so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely a Munshi and whatever allegation is made is against the Manager, Chhotanagpur Graphite Industries. It is further submitted that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law and in absence of the same in the statute, the petitioner cannot be vicariously liable to be prosecuted against in the criminal case. He has also submitted that the criminal case instituted against Krishna Kumar Poddar in the capacity of being the owner of Chhotanagpur Graphite Industries and the case of Dwarka Singh who was also a Munshi was under challenge in this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 800 of 2009 and 807 of 2009 respectively and vide order dated 31.7.2014, the entire criminal proceedings against them were quashed. Learned counsel thus submits that since the case of 2. the petitioner is similarly situated to that of Krishna Kumar Poddar and Dwarka Singh the same also deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that after submission of the prosecution report, cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj and it is to be seen in course of the trial regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the case of Krishna Kumar Poddar and Dwarka Singh has also been quashed. In the case of Dwarka Singh, this court has considered the absence of the provisions of any vicarious liability u/s 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In the case of Md. Fasiudin & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr. reported in 2012(3) JCR 602, it was held thus:-
"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."
Since the case of the petitioner also appears to be similar as that of Krishna Kumar Poddar and Dwarka Singh and in absence of any allegation against the petitioner in the prosecution report of carrying on mining activity in the forest area, this application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this application is hereby allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.F. Case No. 358 of 2006 including the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act is quashed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Dated the 12 th , February, 2015 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi MK/N.A.F.R.