Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. Raja Sharma and Mr. Apoorv Kurup, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 15, would submit that the petitioner did not arraign M/s. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited as party in his complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, though the petitioner has sought to fasten vicarious / constructive liability upon the respondents for commission of offence under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Air Act; Sections 44, 47 and 48 of the Water Act; and Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Environment Act. They would also submit that the complaint alleging vicarious liability of respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 15 is not at all maintainable without arraigning the Company itself as a party and without demonstrating their role and incriminating material against them. They would place strong reliance upon a three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited9 and would also submit that Aneeta Hada's 9 (2012) 5 SCC 661 decision (supra) has been further followed in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank v. State of Maharashtra and others 10. They would contend that the petitioner failed to make any specific averment with respect to the present respondents indicating their role in the running of the said Company and in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, Section 40 of the Air Act and 47 of the Water Act. Therefore, the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor maintainable in fact and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

2. Whether the impugned order is liable to be rejected on the ground that the trial Magistrate has permitted the accused persons No.16 to 19 to participate in the proceedings before

10 (2016) 6 SCC 62 issuing process / passing the impugned order?

10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice that as alleged by the complainant in the complaint filed before the Magistrate, the offence is said to have been committed by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited stating inter alia that environment clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in favour of the said Company on 5-2-2008 for a period of five years, but it was not extended further and it was being run without there being any extension of environment clearance illegally which is punishable under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Environment Act and similarly, the condition incorporated in the consent dated 5-5-2008 by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, particularly clause 29 promising rehabilitation of 16 villages, has not been followed by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited. The power plant was being operated by the said Company without there being any consent to operate under the Air Act and the Water Act which is punishable under the aforesaid provisions as incorporated in the earlier paragraph. Therefore, the principal allegation has been made against the Company and the offence is said to have been committed by the said Company under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, the Water Act and the Air Act, and thereafter, the Directors and other officers of the Company have been arraigned making them as accused in the complaint vicariously liable for the offence committed by the Company.

11. Now, the question is whether arraigning of the Company in the complaint as an accused was imperative in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Section 40 of the Air Act, 1981; and Section 47 of the Water Act, 1974, respectively.

12. Section 16 of the Environment Act, 1986 provides for offences by companies which states as under: -

"16. Offences by companies.--(1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

It has been further held therein that there cannot be any vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the company. In the case at hand, the Company has been arrayed as Accused 1 along with the Chairman and other Directors."

21. In Aneeta Hada (supra) and Standard Chartered Bank (supra), Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A careful comparison of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 16 of the Environment Act, 1986; Section 40 of the Air Act, 1981; and Section 47 of the Water Act, 1974, would show that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a para materia provision to Section 16 of the Environment Act, 1986; Section 40 of the Air Act, 1981; and Section 47 of the Water Act, 1974, as such, the proposition laid down in Aneeta Hada (supra) reiterated in Standard Chartered Bank (supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as in the instant case offence is alleged to have been committed by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; the Air Act, 1981; and the Water Act, 1974, respectively. It is, therefore, held that arraigning the company as an accused, since the offence is said to have been committed by the Company i.e. the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, in the complaint was the first and foremost requirement which has not been done and the said Company has not been arraigned as accused in the said complaint filed before the jurisdictional criminal court, only other persons who are either related with the Company currently or previously and officers of the Central Government and the State Government have been arrayed as party accused without assigning their specific role in running of the said company. The complaint as framed and filed only against the officers of the company without arraigning the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, who is alleged to have committed the offence, is held to be not maintainable in law.