Rabindra Singh Rathee vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 02.03.2015 passed in G(F) Case No.16 of 2014, corresponding to T.R. No.2604 of 2015 wherein the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh.

The prosecution case has been registered on the offence report alleging therein that one Jiten Ram, Forest Guard, Bendi Forest Area addressed to the Beat Officer, Sadar Hazaribag dated 08.01.2014 alleging intrealia that on 08.01.2014 when he along with other forest guards was on patrolling duty in Bendi Udaipur Protected Forest, he had seen road was being constructed after clearing the bushes. On enquiry from the villagers, he came to learn that the said work was being done by the NTPC, Barwadih which is in violation of section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Mr. Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently prosecution report no.P/17 dated 28.8.2014 was submitted showing the present petitioners accused in the case. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is Executive Director and the petitioner no.2 is the Additional General Manager of N.T.P.C Limited. He submits that in the said report, there is no allegation so far these petitioners are concerned when the company/N.T.P.C Limited is not made an accused.

However, the learned court has taken cognizance against these petitioners. He submits that the allegations are of making a road in question. He submits that N.T.P.C Limited has earlier required for interim transmit permission for movement of coal loaded trucks however this permission was not provided to the N.T.P.C Limited and therefore thereafter N.T.P.C Limited has dropped the idea of the proposed road. He submits that in this background unnecessarily the petitioners, who happened to be the officers of the N.T.P.C Limited have been made accused.

Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the offence report and finds that there is no allegation about the role played by these petitioners who happened to be the Executive Director and the Additional General Manager of N.T.P.C Limited respectively. Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act speaks of penalty for acts in contravention of notification under section 30 or rules and section 32. It appears that in the case in hand, what are the role played by these petitioners are not disclosed and the company namely N.T.P.C Limited is not made an accused and in view of that vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioners and for the aforesaid reason, the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 02.03.2015 passed in G(F) Case No.16 of 2014, corresponding to T.R. No.2604 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh is quashed.

Cr.M.P. No.1497 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of.

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.