^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.145of2006 Single Bench Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J. Petitioner Hemant Kumar Goenka Respondente Versys T~ Chhattisgarh Paryavaran Sanrakshan Mandal and another Order be posted for pronouncement on ^ April, 2008 Sd/- . T.P.Sha^pia ^udse < UIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR (C.G.l Cr.M.P.No.145of200S \ Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J. Petitioner Hemant Kumar Goenka, S/o Late Shri B.P. Goenka, Resident of 11, Ashoka Road, Kolkate - 700 027 West Begal. Versys Respondents 1>^ M 2. Chhattisgarh Paryavaran Sanrakshan mandal through it Regional Officer, 490, State Bank Officers Colony, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) -Complainant State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Environmsnt, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CODE OF CRiMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Present : Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 2. \ - ORDER (Passed on o April. 2008) The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of Criminal Proceeding (Prosecution) pending against him in Criminal Case No. 40/2006 for the offence punishable under sections 33, 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act, 1974") pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. . The quashment is prayed on the ground that no specific averment is made out by the respondent No. 1/ Chhattisgarh Paryavaran Sanrankshan Mandal, Bilaspur against the petitioner in the complaint. General and vague allegation is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishableundersections 33,43alid 44 ofthe Act, 1974. I:. j; .1:. ^o' Vf'"^ w-.^.. 3. Counsel for the parties heard. 4. Copy of the complaint and other documents perused. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation of the complainant is npt prima facie sufficient for taking cognizance and is^uance of process against-the petitioner. The specific and detail allegation is required to be made out and established by the compl^inant, but the complainant has not made out any specific allegation S^ainst the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the provisions of the Act, 1974 and Negotiable Instruments'Act, 1881 relating to prosecution and liability of a Director of the Company is identicai and in the light of the above propositions of law, the complainant is required to make specific allegation against the petitioner, but no specific altegation is made out by the complainant agqinst the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that by virtue of the ofRce, Directorof the Company is vicariously liable for the offence as hetd by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Neeta Bhaila and another reported in 2005 AIRSCW 4740. 6. . Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan tat and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 in which it has formulated the guidelines in para 108 wherein inherent power should be exercised. 7. Learned counsel appearing for ^ie petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 656 where in the matter of section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrumenls Act, 1881 it has held that it isobligatory on the part ofthe complainant to make specific allegations as are required by —w : • •&"-s^ S •*1]^^^ "|''l?&F^EiiS law to make a Director vicariously liable and strict construction is necessary. \ 8. In criminal complaint or criminal prosecution, the complainant or prosecution is required to speciflc incriminating material against the accused for taking ^sognizance and issuance of process at the stage of taking cognizance and without any specific allegation and material, no cognizance can be tal^en against any person. In case of eompany, ^ ' criminal liability cannot be fastened against the Director only by virtue of his post 9. In the instant case, specifc allegation of the offence is made out by the complainant in his complaint and specific acl relating to the offence has been made out by the complainant in para-9 of the complaint. Offence alleged is continuing offence and according to specific altegation, the petitioner used to supervise day to day work of the Company. The allegation is sufficient for taking cognizance and issuance of process against the petitioner. After considertng the entire materia! avaiiable on record speciaily para-9 of the complaint The leamed Judiciat Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur had taken cognizance of <fte offence against the petitioner and issued the process. The leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur has not committed any illegality or irregutarity for taking cognizance againstthe petitioner. 11. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismj^sed. B/- Sd/. T.P.Sha®Ba Judge