Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.96 seconds)
Documents citing Md.Fasiuddin & Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2012

Umesh Choudhary @ Umesh Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2023

"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."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Ram Kumar Lal vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 21 February, 2015

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the prosecution report was submitted against three accused persons including the petitioner in his capacity as Director (Technical) of M/s. BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.), Dhanbad. It is also an admitted fact that underground mining activities were being carried out by M/s. BCCL beneath the forest area since long. So far as the allegation made in the prosecution report is concerned, save and except inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the column of accused, there is no specific or direct allegation against him of committing any offence u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act . With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no concept of vicarious liability under the Indian Forest Act and the Director of the Company cannot be made vicariously liable for any offence committed by the company itself, reference has been made to the judgments in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another v. Datar Switchgear Limited and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479 and in the case of Fasiuddin & others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported in 2012 (3) JCR 602 (Jhr.)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

A. K. Mishra @ Awadh Kishore Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 November, 2025

13. So far as the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Md. Fasiuddin & Others Vs. The State of Bihar & Another (supra) is concerned, the offences involved in that case were punishable under Indian Forest Act and Forest Conservation Act. There was no liability of any nominated owner agent under penal provisions of the Indian Forest Act or Forest Conservation Act. Moreover, in that case, the allegation of committing the offence was against TISCO. Unlike this case, where the allegations of failing to mitigate the risk of an accident, due to lack of 6 Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019 (2025:JHHC:33528) 2023:JHHC:44527 adequate and specific parking space for heavy earth moving machinery inside the workshop / mines and to implement the controlling measures for working the road grader machine inside the workshop / mines is part of the safety management plan and thus, negligently and willingly endangered the life of the persons employed in the workshop / mines and not providing and maintaining adequate rest shelters in the workshop / mines was directed against the petitioners which has not yet been denied in the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand on 31 July, 2014

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.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - H C Mishra - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand on 31 July, 2014

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.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - H C Mishra - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand on 31 July, 2014

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.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - H C Mishra - Full Document
1