IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3599 of 2025

1. Prakash Chandra, aged about 63 Years, son of Late

Rameshwar Prasad Mahtha, resident of Flat No. 204, 2nd Floor, Subala garden, Amaghata, P.O. & P.S. K.G.

Ashram, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

2. Nandeshwar Rai, aged about 57 Years, son of

Satyanarain rai, resident of B/2 Astha Tara Mansion, Polytechnic Road, Near Carmel School, P.O. and P.S.

Jharudih, Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand

...... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Adv.

Mr. Rishav Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. PP

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by learned CJM Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case no. 2479 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, learned CJM Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33

of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is

the General Manager Lodhna Area, BCCL and the petitioner no. 2 is the Project Officer, M.O.C.P., South Tisra, BCCL and the allegation is that the BCCL has constructed years ago, one workshop over the forest land and also, prepared a kaccha road approaching the said workshop. On the basis of the prosecution

report submitted by the Forest Officer, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false and there is no allegation that the petitioners have constructed the workshop and road approaching the same. It is then submitted that the petitioner no. 1 joined the Lodna area post on 31.07.2015 and transferred out from Lodna area to Sijua area on 25.07.2017 and the petitioner no. 2 was transferred out from Lodna area to Bhowra area on 09.12.2017. It is next submitted that no offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe Versus Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online 806, paragraph no. 24 and

25 of which reads as under :-

”24. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), it is observed by this Court in paragraphs 42 to 44 as under:

“(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person 42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.

43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision.

44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any s