Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jai Raj And Ors vs State And Anr on 28 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:31845]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 532/2017
CNR: RJHC010221302017
URN: CRLMP / 1472U / 2017
1. Jai Raj S/o Janakraj S/o Thomas Janakraj, 1066 Officer
Colony, Anna Nagar, West Extention, Chennai Presently
Resident Of D-6 Zink Park, Moti Magari Scheme Udaipur.
2. Hindustan Zink Ltd. Through Nominee Nand Kumar S/o
N.b. Lakhchura, Zink Nagar Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Prakash Puri /so Kaileshpuri Goswami, Mataji Ki Pandoli,
Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sishodia Sr. Adv assisted
by Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit
Mr. Hardik Vyas
Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Rathore
Kuldeep
Mr. Saurabh Sirvi
Mr. Tararam Sirvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Chaudhary,Dy.G.A.
Mr. S.S. Shaktawat
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (2 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 25/05/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 25/05/2026
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 28/07/2026
By the Court:-
Grievance-
1. By way of filing the present Misc. Petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the
order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Revision No.
56/2011, whereby the revision petition preferred by the
petitioners came to be dismissed, affirming the order dated
26.09.2011 passed by the learned ACJM No.2, Chittorgarh in
Criminal Regular Case No. 210/2008, whereby charges were
framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections
278, 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC read with Sections 15 and
16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 .
Facts-
2. The respondent No.2/complainant alleged that on
09.11.2005, a leakage of poisonous sulphur gas occurred
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (3 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
from the plant of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. situated near Village
Putoli, Chittorgarh, as a consequence whereof the nearby
residents allegedly suffered coughing, breathing difficulties
and other health-related ailments, resulting in panic amongst
the local inhabitants. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR
No.327/2005 came to be registered on 10.11.2005 at Police
Station Chanderiya against petitioner No.2 for offences under
Sections 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC. Upon completion of
investigation, the police prepared a charge-sheet on
22.12.2006 against petitioner No.2 alone for the aforesaid
offences under the IPC. During the interregnum, the
complainant served a notice dated 17.01.2008 purporting to
invoke the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. In response thereto, the Rajasthan State Pollution
Control Board, vide communication dated 24.04.2008,
informed the complainant that the matter was already under
police investigation for offences under the IPC and clarified
that it had no authority to institute prosecution under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Thereafter, on 05.05.2008, respondent No.2 instituted a
private complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh against the present petitioners
alleging commission of offences under Sections 278, 285,
287, 290 and 336 IPC read with Sections 15 and 16 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. During consideration of
the complaint, the learned Magistrate noticed that, in respect
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (4 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
of the very same occurrence, an FIR had already been
registered and that the investigating agency had completed
investigation and prepared a charge-sheet against petitioner
No.2, though the same had not yet been presented before
the competent Court. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate
called for the police report and, upon perusal thereof,
recorded that the investigating agency had also found prima
facie commission of offences under Sections 285, 287, 290
and 336 IPC. The learned Magistrate further observed that,
since the complainant had issued the statutory notice
contemplated under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
and no complaint had been instituted by the competent
authority within the prescribed period, the complainant was
competent to maintain a private complaint under the said
Act. Consequently, vide order dated 02.06.2008, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 15
and 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as well as
Sections 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC against all the accused
persons and directed that, while the police papers be taken
on record, the proceedings shall continue as a complaint
case, being a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a
police report. The learned majistrate also recorded
statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
4. Thereafter, based upon the material available on record, the
learned trial Court, vide order dated 26.09.2011, framed
charges against all the petitioners for offences under
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (5 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
Sections 278, 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC read with Sections
15 and 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Criminal
Revision No.56/2011, which came to be dismissed by the
learned Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh vide order
dated 15.11.2016, affirming the order framing charges.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners invoked
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. by filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
The petition was initially decided by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. However, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 25.01.2018 passed
in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.41963/2017,
set aside the order dated 27.03.2017 and remitted the
matter to this Court for fresh consideration. In pursuance
thereof, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
04.04.2018, restored the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition to its original number for adjudication on merits.
6. Subsequently, during the course of hearing, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.05.2018, recorded
the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the
petition was not being pressed insofar as petitioner No.2 –
Ashok was concerned and, accordingly, dismissed the
petition as not pressed qua the said petitioner while directing
that the proceedings shall continue in relation to the
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (6 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
remaining petitioner(s). The present petition, therefore,
survives only at the instance of the remaining petitioner(s),
who submit that the institution and continuation of the
complaint proceedings are wholly unsustainable in law, being
contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the material collected during
investigation, and the settled principles governing criminal
prosecution, thereby warranting exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the impugned orders and all consequential
criminal proceedings.
7. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
Observations regarding Scope of Interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., Nature of Criminal Liability and
Broad Issues Involved
Observations
8. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the
entire material available on record, including the complaint,
the police investigation, the occurrence report, the report of
the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, the orders passed
by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court, and
the statutory framework governing the controversy. The
question which arises for consideration is not merely whether
a leakage of gas had occurred on the fateful evening of
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (7 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
09.11.2005, but whether the material collected by the
complainant and the investigating agency is legally sufficient
to justify continuation of criminal prosecution against the
present petitioner, particularly in the absence of any specific
allegation attributing a criminal role to him.
9. Criminal jurisprudence proceeds on the fundamental premise
that criminal liability is essentially personal in nature. Unlike
civil law, where liability may sometimes arise by virtue of
relationship, ownership or status, criminal law insists upon
proof of a culpable act coupled with the requisite degree of
mens rea or statutory responsibility. A person cannot be
exposed to criminal prosecution merely because he occupies
a superior administrative position in a company or happens
to hold an office carrying managerial designation. Unless the
statute specifically engrafts the principle of vicarious liability
or the material collected during investigation demonstrates
active participation, consent, connivance or culpable
negligence, criminal law does not permit prosecution merely
on account of designation.
10. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is intended to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of Court. Although this
extraordinary jurisdiction is required to be exercised
sparingly, it is equally well settled that where the
uncontroverted allegations, even if accepted at their face
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (8 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
value, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences or where continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to misuse of the judicial process, this Court would
not hesitate to interdict such prosecution at the threshold.
11. It is equally trite that while considering a petition for
quashing, this Court is not expected to meticulously
appreciate the evidence as would be undertaken during trial.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot shut its eyes to glaring legal
deficiencies apparent on the face of the record. If the
material relied upon by the prosecution is inherently
inconsistent, fundamentally contradictory or incapable of
establishing the foundational ingredients of criminal liability,
relegating the accused to undergo the ordeal of a prolonged
criminal trial would itself amount to injustice. Criminal
prosecution cannot be permitted to assume the character of
a punitive process in the absence of a legally sustainable
accusation.
12. The facts of the present case present an unusual situation.
The occurrence in question had already been investigated by
the police pursuant to registration of FIR No.327/2005. Upon
completion of investigation extending over more than one
year, the investigating agency found sufficient material only
against one functionary of the plant and consciously did not
implicate the present petitioner(Jai Raj). Thereafter, on the
very same factual foundation, a private complaint came to
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (9 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
be instituted seeking to prosecute not only the company but
also its senior officials including the present petitioner. Thus,
the issue before this Court is not merely whether a gas
leakage occurred, but whether the subsequent complaint
discloses any independent material justifying prosecution of
a person who had consciously been excluded from the police
investigation.
13. Significantly, the complaint itself proceeds on broad and
omnibus allegations against the senior officers of Hindustan
Zinc Limited. There is no specific assertion explaining the
exact role played by the petitioner on the date of
occurrence; nor does the complaint disclose that he was
present at the concerned unit when the alleged leakage
occurred. There is no averment that the petitioner was
supervising the operation of the acid plant, handling the
machinery from which leakage allegedly emanated, issuing
operational instructions, or exercising direct control over the
functioning of the particular manufacturing process. The
complaint merely proceeds on the assumption that since the
petitioner occupied a senior administrative office within the
company, he must necessarily bear criminal responsibility for
every incident occurring in the establishment. Such an
approach is wholly alien to settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (10 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
14. The distinction between corporate responsibility and
criminal culpability assumes considerable significance in
cases involving industrial undertakings. Modern corporations
function through several departments, each supervised by
different officers entrusted with separate operational
responsibilities. Every industrial mishap cannot automatically
translate into criminal prosecution of every officer occupying
a higher echelon in the corporate hierarchy. Acceptance of
such a proposition would virtually obliterate the distinction
between administrative accountability and criminal
culpability, thereby converting every senior executive into
an accused whenever any untoward incident occurs within
the industrial premises. Criminal law does not countenance
such sweeping presumptions.
15. Equally important is the principle that suspicion, however
grave, cannot substitute legal evidence. Mere occurrence of
an unfortunate industrial accident cannot ipso facto establish
commission of offences punishable under Sections 278, 285,
287, 290 or 336 IPC. The prosecution must prima facie
demonstrate the existence of a rash or negligent act
attributable to the particular accused. Unless the material
discloses that the accused either committed an act so rashly
or negligently as to endanger human life or knowingly
omitted to take necessary precautions despite being under a
legal duty to do so, the essential ingredients of the penal
provisions remain unfulfilled.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (11 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
16. The learned courts below appear to have proceeded
substantially on the premise that since environmental
protection is of paramount constitutional importance and the
alleged incident involved escape of poisonous gas, the senior
officers of the company could legitimately be called upon to
face trial. While there can be no quarrel with the
constitutional obligation of industries to maintain ecological
balance and safeguard public health under Article 21 of the
Constitution, constitutional significance of environmental
protection cannot dilute the settled principles governing
criminal liability. Constitutional values undoubtedly demand
strict adherence to environmental norms; however, criminal
prosecution must nevertheless conform to the statutory
requirements prescribed by law. Constitutional concern
cannot be permitted to substitute the legal proof required for
fastening criminal responsibility upon an individual.
17. The impugned orders further indicate that the courts below
treated the status of the petitioners as a senior functionary
of the company as sufficient to infer their responsibility
regarding environmental compliance. Such reasoning, in the
considered opinion of this Court, reverses the settled burden
recognised under criminal law. The prosecution is required to
first establish, at least prima facie, the existence of material
connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Criminal
liability cannot arise merely because the accused fails to
demonstrate his innocence. The presumption of innocence
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (12 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
continues to operate until displaced by legally admissible
material. To compel an individual to face a criminal trial
solely on account of his designation would amount to
permitting criminal law to operate upon assumptions rather
than evidence.
18. Before examining the individual offences alleged against
the petitioner, it becomes imperative to determine whether
the statutory framework governing offences committed by
companies at all permits prosecution of the present
petitioner in the absence of specific allegations regarding his
personal involvement. Equally necessary is an examination
of the extent to which the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 incorporate the doctrine of vicarious
liability and whether the complaint satisfies those mandatory
statutory requirements. Since these issues strike at the very
root of the maintainability of the criminal proceedings, this
Court considers it appropriate to examine them before
dealing with the factual inconsistencies emerging from the
occurrence report, forensic material and other evidence
collected during investigation.
Observations on Vicarious Liability under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Criminal
Liability of the Present Petitioner
19. The foremost question which falls for consideration is
whether the present petitioner could have been prosecuted
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (13 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
merely because they happened to occupy the office of Senior
Vice-President/President of Hindustan Zinc Limited. The
answer to this question necessarily depends upon the
statutory scheme governing offences committed by
companies as well as the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence relating to vicarious liability.
20. At the outset, it deserves emphasis that criminal law
recognizes individual culpability as its foundational principle.
Unless a statute expressly creates a legal fiction extending
criminal liability to persons other than the actual offender,
every accused is answerable only for his own acts or
omissions. Unlike civil liability, where responsibility may arise
on account of ownership, agency or employment, criminal
liability ordinarily remains personal and cannot be inferred
merely by virtue of an individual’s position in an
organization.
21. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 undoubtedly
contains a provision dealing with offences committed by
companies. Section 16, as it stood at the relevant point of
time, creates a statutory fiction by which every person who,
at the time of commission of the offence, was directly in
charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of
its business, as well as the company itself, may be
proceeded against. Sub-section (2) further extends liability
to any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer only
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (14 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
where the offence is shown to have been committed with his
consent, connivance or due to his neglect. Thus, even the
statute itself does not contemplate automatic prosecution of
every officer holding a high designation in the corporate
hierarchy. Rather, the legislative intent unmistakably requires
a clear nexus between the individual sought to be prosecuted
and the commission of the alleged offence.
22. The expression “person in charge of and responsible to the
company for the conduct of its business” has consistently
received strict interpretation by constitutional courts. The
phrase does not refer to every officer drawing a higher salary
or occupying a superior administrative office. It contemplates
a person who exercises actual operational control over the
affairs resulting in commission of the offence. The emphasis
is upon effective control, actual supervision and decision-
making authority concerning the particular activity
constituting the alleged violation.
23. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 falls conspicuously
short of satisfying these indispensable statutory
requirements. A careful reading thereof reveals that the
complainant has nowhere pleaded that the petitioner was
directly supervising the functioning of the acid plant, that he
was controlling the operational process from which the
alleged gas leakage occurred, that he had issued any
instructions resulting in the accident, or that the alleged
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (15 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
omission occurred with his consent or connivance. Equally
absent is any averment that the petitioner had neglected any
statutory duty specifically entrusted to him. The allegations
remain wholly omnibus and generalized, seeking to implicate
every senior officer solely because they occupied responsible
positions within the company.
24. Criminal law, however, does not permit such sweeping
allegations to substitute the specific factual foundation
mandated by Section 16 of the Act. Where the legislature
itself insists that liability of officers of a company arises only
if they were responsible for the conduct of the business or if
the offence occurred with their consent, connivance or
neglect, the Court cannot dilute those statutory safeguards
by importing presumptions unsupported by pleadings or
evidence.
25. The police investigation assumes considerable significance
in this regard. The FIR registered immediately after the
incident did not name the present petitioner as an accused.
During investigation, statements of employees, technical
records and relevant material were collected by the
investigating agency. Despite such investigation, the police
consciously refrained from filing a charge-sheet against the
petitioner and instead submitted the report only against
another officer who was allegedly concerned with the
operational functioning of the plant. This conscious exclusion
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (16 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
of the petitioner by the investigating agency constitutes an
important circumstance which the courts below were
required to examine with greater circumspection before
permitting continuation of criminal proceedings through a
subsequent private complaint.
26. It is true that the conclusions recorded by the investigating
agency are not binding upon the Magistrate and the Court is
competent to take cognizance even where the police does
not prosecute a particular person. However, where the
investigating agency, after a detailed technical investigation,
finds no material connecting a senior officer with the alleged
occurrence, the Court is expected to identify independent
material demonstrating his involvement before compelling
him to face a criminal trial. In the present case, no such
independent material is discernible from the record.
27. What is more striking is the complete absence of any
documentary evidence indicating the petitioner’s involvement
in the day-to-day operations of the concerned unit. No
service record has been produced demonstrating that the
petitioner exercised supervisory control over the acid plant.
No organizational chart has been placed on record showing
that operational decisions concerning the contact tower or
acid loading pump were being taken under his authority. No
internal communication, inspection report, maintenance
instruction, operational directive or technical correspondence
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (17 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
has been relied upon to establish that the petitioner
possessed immediate responsibility over the machinery
allegedly responsible for the leakage. The prosecution has
thus sought to bridge this evidentiary vacuum merely by
relying upon the petitioner’s designation.
28. Equally absent is any oral evidence attributing a specific
overt act to the petitioner. The statements recorded during
the complaint proceedings merely refer to certain officers of
Hindustan Zinc Limited in a generalized manner without
narrating any act personally committed by the petitioner.
None of the witnesses claims to have seen the petitioner
operating the plant, issuing operational directions, ignoring
any technical defect or refusing preventive measures. Their
statements merely reflect a perception that senior officers
were responsible because the incident occurred within the
company’s establishment. Such generalized assumptions,
howsoever bona fide, cannot satisfy the strict standards
governing criminal prosecution.
29. The learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded on the
premise that environmental protection being a matter of
public importance, responsibility must necessarily extend to
the senior management of the company. Such reasoning
overlooks the distinction between administrative
accountability and criminal culpability. Administrative
responsibility may indeed require senior management to
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (18 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
ensure compliance with environmental standards. Criminal
responsibility, however, cannot be fastened unless the
ingredients prescribed by the penal statute are specifically
established.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that
criminal liability of company officials cannot be inferred
merely because of the office held by them. In Sanjay Dutt
v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC ONLINE SC 32), the
Supreme Court authoritatively reiterated that vicarious
liability is not automatic and arises only where the statute
specifically provides for it and where the complaint contains
clear and specific allegations demonstrating the personal role
of the officer sought to be prosecuted. The Court further held
that mere supervisory status or designation is insufficient
and there must exist material showing that the alleged acts
stemmed from the individual’s own conduct and
involvement.
31. Similar principles have consistently been reiterated in
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar
Switchgear Ltd. ((2010) 10 SCC 479), wherein the Supreme
Court observed that where the statute does not expressly
create vicarious liability, Directors or officers of a company
cannot be prosecuted merely because of their official position
and the complaint must contain specific averments regarding
their individual role.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (19 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
32. The above principles are not mere procedural
technicalities. They represent substantive safeguards flowing
from the fundamental presumption of innocence. If every
industrial accident were sufficient to prosecute every
Director, Vice-President or senior executive irrespective of his
actual involvement, criminal law would cease to punish
personal wrongdoing and would instead penalize status.
Such an interpretation would not only run contrary to settled
jurisprudence but would also render the carefully drafted
language of Section 16 otiose.
33. Tested on the touchstone of these settled principles, the
complaint in the present case is conspicuously deficient.
Neither does it plead that the petitioner was directly in
charge of the acid plant nor does it allege that the
occurrence resulted from his consent, connivance or neglect.
No material collected during investigation supplements these
deficiencies. On the contrary, the police investigation itself
refrained from attributing criminal responsibility to the
petitioner. The continuation of prosecution against him,
therefore, rests solely upon presumptions flowing from his
designation, which is legally impermissible.
34. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that
both the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court
committed a manifest error in overlooking the mandatory
ingredients of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection)
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (20 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
Act, 1986 and in proceeding on the erroneous assumption
that the petitioner’s senior position within the company, by
itself, constituted sufficient ground to frame charges against
him. Such an approach runs contrary to the statutory
scheme, the settled principles governing corporate criminal
liability, and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
35. Having found that the prosecution suffers from a
fundamental legal infirmity regarding the fastening of
vicarious liability, this Court shall now examine whether the
technical and scientific evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is itself consistent enough to disclose the
commission of the alleged offences. Since the occurrence
report and the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report
appear to travel in entirely different directions regarding the
nature and source of the alleged hazardous substance, their
evidentiary impact requires independent examination before
the criminal proceedings are permitted to continue.
Observations on Scientific Evidence, Contradictory
Material on Record, Applicability of Vis Major and
Whether the Essential Ingredients of the IPC Offences
are Prima Facie Established
36. Having examined the question of vicarious liability, this
Court now proceeds to evaluate the evidentiary foundation
upon which the prosecution seeks to sustain the charges
under Sections 278, 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC. At the stage
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (21 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
of framing of charge, although the Court is not expected to
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, it is
nevertheless under a solemn obligation to ascertain whether
the material collected by the prosecution, if accepted at its
face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged. Where the foundational material itself suffers from
intrinsic inconsistencies, irreconcilable contradictions or
scientific improbabilities, continuation of criminal prosecution
would cease to be an exercise in administration of justice
and would instead degenerate into an abuse of the process
of Court.
37. The prosecution case fundamentally rests upon the
allegation that poisonous gas escaped from the acid plant of
Hindustan Zinc Limited on the evening of 09.11.2005,
resulting in irritation to the eyes, breathing difficulties and
panic amongst the inhabitants residing in the vicinity of
Village Putholi. In order to substantiate this allegation,
reliance has principally been placed upon two pieces of
scientific material, namely, the Scene of Occurrence Report
prepared by the team of the Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory and the Chemical Examination Report issued by
the same forensic laboratory after examination of the seized
samples. A careful scrutiny of these two reports, however,
reveals a striking inconsistency which goes to the very root
of the prosecution story.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (22 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
38. The Scene of Occurrence Report records that the forensic
experts inspected the smelter immediately after the incident
and noted that the acid plant had allegedly developed
operational difficulties due to failure of the acid loading
pump. It was opined that because the contact tower could
not completely absorb sulphur trioxide (SO₃), a portion of
the unabsorbed SO₃ gas escaped through the chimney and,
upon coming into contact with atmospheric moisture, formed
dense acidic fog capable of causing irritation to the eyes,
nose and throat. The report, therefore, attributes the alleged
occurrence specifically to escape of sulphur trioxide gas from
the contact tower consequent upon mechanical failure of the
acid loading pump.
39. Significantly, however, the Chemical Examination Report
prepared by the very same Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory presents an entirely different picture. The report
records that the liquid samples collected from the spot
emitted smell of alcohol and, upon chemical examination, did
not give positive tests for the presence of any acid
whatsoever. Thus, the scientific examination of the very
samples allegedly collected in connection with the incident
failed to detect the presence of acidic content, which one
would reasonably expect if the prosecution version regarding
substantial escape of sulphur trioxide and formation of
sulphuric acid mist were correct.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (23 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
40. This contradiction is neither peripheral nor inconsequential.
It strikes at the very substratum of the prosecution case. On
the one hand, the occurrence report proceeds upon the
hypothesis that the escape of sulphur trioxide gas was
responsible for the alleged environmental contamination. On
the other hand, the scientific examination of the seized
samples completely negates the presence of acid, thereby
rendering the prosecution’s own scientific evidence mutually
destructive. It is difficult to reconcile how an alleged escape
of sulphur trioxide, sufficiently serious to cause widespread
irritation and atmospheric contamination, would
simultaneously leave no detectable acidic residue in the
samples forwarded for forensic examination.
41. The learned courts below unfortunately failed to advert to
this glaring inconsistency. Neither the order framing charge
nor the revisional order reflects any consideration of the
evidentiary implications arising from these contradictory
scientific reports. The courts below appear to have
proceeded on the broad assumption that the occurrence of
gas leakage itself was sufficient to justify prosecution,
without examining whether the scientific material actually
corroborated the allegations forming the basis of the
complaint.
42. It deserves emphasis that scientific evidence occupies a
unique position in criminal adjudication. Unlike oral
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (24 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
testimony, scientific analysis is expected to provide objective
and neutral assistance to the Court. Where two scientific
materials originating from the same investigative process
point in diametrically opposite directions, the Court cannot
simply overlook such inconsistency and compel an accused
to undergo criminal trial on the basis of conjectures. Criminal
prosecution must rest upon coherent and legally admissible
material rather than internally inconsistent scientific
hypotheses.
43. Equally significant is the complete absence of any
contemporaneous medical evidence establishing that the
alleged victims suffered injuries attributable to sulphur
trioxide exposure. No medical report demonstrating acid
burns, pulmonary injury or toxic inhalation attributable to
SO₃ has been placed on record. The prosecution also does
not disclose any scientific correlation between the alleged
symptoms experienced by certain villagers and the specific
chemical allegedly released from the plant. Mere assertions
of coughing or breathing discomfort, without scientific
linkage to the alleged emission, cannot by themselves
establish the commission of offences punishable under the
penal provisions invoked.
44. The occurrence report itself indicates that the alleged
escape of gas was occasioned due to failure of the acid
loading pump. Significantly, there is nothing on record
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (25 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
suggesting that such mechanical failure was deliberately
engineered or intentionally ignored by the petitioner.
Industrial machinery, despite regular maintenance, may
occasionally malfunction owing to mechanical fatigue,
unforeseen technical defects or sudden operational
contingencies. Criminal law recognizes a clear distinction
between an unfortunate industrial accident and an act of
criminal negligence. Every mechanical failure does not ipso
facto amount to a criminal offence.
45. This distinction finds expression in the well-recognized
doctrine of vis major, sometimes referred to as inevitable
accident or irresistible occurrence. Although the doctrine has
traditionally been invoked in civil jurisprudence, its
underlying principle, that consequences resulting from
unforeseen and unavoidable events cannot ordinarily attract
penal consequences in the absence of culpable negligence,
has equal relevance while examining criminal liability arising
from industrial accidents. Criminal negligence postulates a
conscious disregard of a known risk or a gross omission
amounting to recklessness. It cannot be presumed merely
because an accident has occurred.
46. The material available on record, far from indicating
deliberate disregard of safety measures, suggests that the
acid plant was shut down immediately upon noticing
operational difficulties in the loading pump. The occurrence
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (26 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
report itself records that the plant had been stopped at
about 7:45 p.m. because of heating of the acid loading
pump. This circumstance assumes considerable importance.
Immediate stoppage of the plant upon detection of
mechanical difficulty prima facie indicates an attempt to
prevent further consequences rather than a reckless
indifference towards public safety. Such conduct is
inconsistent with the ingredients of rashness or gross
negligence contemplated under Sections 285 and 287 IPC.
47. Sections 285 and 287 IPC criminalize negligent conduct
with respect to combustible matter and machinery
respectively. The gravamen of these offences lies in doing an
act rashly or negligently, or knowingly omitting to take
reasonable precautions sufficient to guard against probable
danger. The prosecution must therefore demonstrate not
merely that an accident occurred but that the accused
consciously omitted to take precautions which an ordinarily
prudent person entrusted with such machinery would have
taken. The present record is singularly silent on this aspect.
There is no maintenance register, inspection report, technical
audit, statutory notice or expert opinion indicating prior
knowledge of imminent danger on the part of the petitioner
or his deliberate failure to rectify the alleged defect.There is
no material to suggest that the plant did not possess the
requisite licence for use of the chemicals or the requisite
Consent to Operate from the competent authorities.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (27 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
48. Likewise, the offence under Section 336 IPC requires proof
of an act so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or
personal safety. The emphasis again is upon the conduct of
the accused. Neither the complaint nor the evidence
collected during investigation identifies any specific act
committed by the petitioner capable of satisfying this
statutory ingredient. In the absence of any overt act
attributable to him, invocation of Section 336 IPC becomes
wholly unsustainable.
49. The offence under Section 278 IPC contemplates making
the atmosphere noxious to health. Even assuming,
arguendo, that some atmospheric contamination had
occurred, the prosecution is still required to establish a prima
facie nexus between such contamination and the acts of the
particular accused sought to be prosecuted. Mere existence
of environmental pollution does not automatically implicate
every officer of the company. The prosecution has failed to
bridge this indispensable causal connection.
50. Equally, Section 290 IPC dealing with public nuisance
cannot be invoked in isolation divorced from the factual
foundation establishing criminal responsibility. Public
nuisance under the Penal Code is not a doctrine of strict
liability. The prosecution must first establish that the accused
committed or permitted the alleged nuisance through acts
attracting criminal culpability. In the absence of any material
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (28 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
connecting the petitioner with the operational functioning of
the plant or with the alleged mechanical failure, even this
offence cannot survive independently.
51. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where
the prosecution evidence itself gives rise to two equally
plausible hypotheses, one pointing towards culpable
negligence and the other indicating an unfortunate industrial
accident resulting from mechanical malfunction, the Court
must adopt the interpretation favourable to the accused,
particularly where continuation of criminal prosecution is
sought merely on speculative assumptions. The law does not
countenance criminal trials founded upon uncertain scientific
premises and generalized allegations.
52. Viewed cumulatively, therefore, the scientific evidence
available on record neither presents a consistent account
regarding the alleged hazardous substance nor establishes
the necessary causal link between the petitioner and the
occurrence. The contradiction between the occurrence report
and the forensic chemical analysis, the absence of any
technical material demonstrating prior knowledge or
deliberate omission, the lack of medical evidence
establishing toxic exposure, and the complete absence of
material attributing operational control to the petitioner
collectively demolish the foundational basis required for
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (29 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
framing charges under the aforesaid provisions of the Penal
Code.
53. This Court is, therefore, unable to persuade itself to concur
with the conclusion reached by the learned courts below that
sufficient prima facie material existed for proceeding against
the petitioner. On the contrary, the material on record
unmistakably discloses that the prosecution has sought to
substitute presumptions for proof and designation for
culpability, a course wholly impermissible under criminal law.
Observations on the Maintainability of the Complaint
under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, Effect of the Earlier Police Investigation and
Abuse of the Process of Law
54. Having examined the question of vicarious liability and the
evidentiary inconsistencies surrounding the alleged
occurrence, this Court now proceeds to determine whether
the complaint itself was maintainable under the provisions of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This issue assumes
considerable significance because the offences under
Sections 15 and 16 of the Act do not stand on the same
footing as ordinary offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The Environment (Protection) Act is a special legislation
containing a self-contained mechanism governing initiation of
prosecution, cognizance of offences and the persons
competent to institute criminal proceedings. Consequently,
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (30 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
strict adherence to the statutory mandate is not merely
procedural but constitutes a jurisdictional pre-condition for
the assumption of criminal jurisdiction by the Court.
55. Section 19 of the Act imposes a clear embargo upon the
power of the criminal court to take cognizance of offences
under the Act. The language employed by the legislature is
negative and prohibitory in character. It categorically
stipulates that “No Court shall take cognizance” except upon
a complaint made either by the Central Government or an
authority duly authorised by it, or by any other person who
has given not less than sixty days’ notice, in the prescribed
manner, of the alleged offence and of his intention to
institute prosecution. The provision, therefore, is not merely
directory but mandatory in nature, as it regulates the very
jurisdiction of the criminal court to entertain proceedings
under the Act.
56. The object underlying Section 19 is not difficult to discern.
Environmental issues frequently involve technical, scientific
and regulatory considerations requiring evaluation by expert
authorities possessing the requisite expertise. Before
exposing an industrial establishment to criminal prosecution
under a special environmental statute, the legislature
intended that the competent governmental authority should
first be afforded an opportunity to examine the alleged
violation and decide whether prosecution is warranted. The
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (31 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
statutory notice contemplated under Section 19 is thus
intended to avoid unnecessary criminal litigation while
simultaneously ensuring effective enforcement of
environmental standards through specialised regulatory
agencies.
57. In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent
No.2 issued a notice dated 17.01.2008 addressed to the
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. In response thereto,
the Board, vide communication dated 21.04.2008, informed
the complainant that the matter had already been
investigated by the police in connection with the offences
registered under the Indian Penal Code and that the Board
was not initiating prosecution under the circumstances.
Thereafter, the complainant instituted the present complaint
on 05.05.2008 invoking Sections 15 and 16 of the
Environment (Protection) Act along with the provisions of the
58. The learned courts below proceeded on the premise that
mere expiry of sixty days after issuance of notice
automatically entitled the complainant to institute
prosecution under the Act. Such an interpretation, in the
considered opinion of this Court, overlooks the larger
statutory context in which Section 19 operates. Compliance
with the notice requirement undoubtedly enables a private
person to institute a complaint where the competent
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (32 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
authority chooses not to act. However, the provision cannot
be interpreted in a manner that permits a complainant to
circumvent or duplicate an investigation already undertaken
by a statutory investigating agency on the very same
occurrence, particularly when such investigation had
culminated in a considered police report.
59. The chronology of events assumes considerable
importance. Immediately after the alleged incident dated
09.11.2005, FIR No.327/2005 was registered by the
jurisdictional police. The investigation was not casual or
perfunctory. Technical experts from the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory visited the site, inspected the plant,
recorded observations and examined relevant samples. Upon
completion of investigation, the police consciously filed a
charge-sheet only against one officer while not finding
sufficient material to prosecute the present petitioner. Thus,
long before the institution of the complaint under the
Environment (Protection) Act, the machinery of criminal law
had already been set in motion and had substantially
examined the very allegations forming the basis of the
subsequent complaint.
60. It is noteworthy that the communication of the Pollution
Control Board itself expressly refers to the pendency of
police investigation. The Board did not record any
independent finding suggesting violation of the provisions of
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (33 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
the Environment (Protection) Act by the petitioner. Nor did it
express disagreement with the outcome of the police
investigation. On the contrary, its response indicates that the
matter was already under consideration by the investigating
agency. In such circumstances, the subsequent complaint,
instead of placing any fresh scientific or technical material
before the Court, merely sought to enlarge the list of
accused by introducing senior officers who had consciously
not been prosecuted by the investigating agency.
61. This aspect assumes added significance because the
complaint does not disclose any independent investigation
undertaken by the complainant after receipt of the Board’s
communication. No fresh expert opinion, no additional
technical report and no new scientific material have been
brought on record which could justify reopening the issue of
criminal liability against persons who had already stood
excluded during police investigation. The complaint is,
therefore, substantially founded upon the very factual matrix
which had already been scrutinized by the investigating
agency.
62. Criminal law certainly permits a Magistrate to take
cognizance upon a complaint notwithstanding the
conclusions recorded in a police report. Equally well settled,
however, is the principle that where a subsequent complaint
merely reiterates the same allegations without disclosing any
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (34 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
fresh material or exceptional circumstance, the Court must
exercise greater caution lest the criminal process be
converted into an instrument for repeatedly prosecuting
individuals on identical allegations. The administration of
criminal justice cannot be permitted to assume the character
of successive attempts to secure prosecution until a desired
result is achieved.
63. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pratap Lal Teli v.
State of Maharashtra 2019 SCC ONLINE BOM 4274 has
explained that Section 19 creates a statutory fetter upon
cognizance under the Environment (Protection) Act and that
prosecution must strictly conform to the requirements
prescribed therein. Likewise, the Jharkhand High Court in
Vivek Kumar v. State of Jharkhand 2015 SCC Online
Jhar 5011 reiterated that proceedings initiated in
derogation of the statutory mandate governing cognizance
under the Act are legally unsustainable. Though arising in
different factual contexts, these decisions reinforce the
principle that the procedural safeguards engrafted in Section
19 cannot be diluted by liberal interpretation.
64. Equally relevant is Section 24 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, which recognizes that where an act or
omission constitutes an offence punishable both under the
Environment (Protection) Act and under any other
enactment, the offender shall ordinarily be punished under
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (35 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
the other enactment. The legislative intent underlying this
provision is to avoid overlapping prosecutions for the same
occurrence and to harmonize the operation of special and
general criminal laws. In the present case, investigation
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code had already
culminated in submission of a police report. The subsequent
complaint, instead of bringing any additional statutory
violation to light, merely sought to prosecute additional
persons on substantially identical allegations. Such
duplication hardly advances the object sought to be achieved
by the statute.
65. The Court is also constrained to observe that permitting
such successive proceedings on identical facts would have
far-reaching consequences. Every time an investigating
agency chooses not to prosecute a particular officer of a
company, an interested individual may institute a parallel
complaint under the special enactment seeking to array the
very same person as an accused, notwithstanding the
absence of fresh material. Such an approach would seriously
undermine the finality attached to investigative conclusions
and would expose individuals to repeated criminal
proceedings founded upon identical allegations.
66. The facts of the present case unmistakably reveal that the
complainant did not place before the learned Magistrate any
material which had escaped consideration during police
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (36 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
investigation. Rather, the complaint substantially relies upon
the same occurrence, the same alleged gas leakage and the
same factual allegations. The only material difference lies in
the attempt to prosecute additional senior officers of the
company despite the investigating agency having consciously
refrained from implicating them. Criminal law cannot be
permitted to become a vehicle for such enlargement of
liability in the absence of legally admissible material.
67. The learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, appears
to have proceeded primarily on the consideration that since
the complainant had served notice under Section 19 and no
prosecution had been launched by the competent authority
within sixty days, the complaint became maintainable as a
matter of course. Such reasoning, in the respectful opinion of
this Court, is incomplete. The Court was equally required to
examine whether the complaint disclosed the essential
ingredients of the offences under the special enactment,
whether the mandatory requirements of Section 16 stood
prima facie satisfied, whether any independent material
justified prosecution of the petitioner, and whether the
complaint merely duplicated an investigation already
undertaken by the police. These jurisdictional considerations
unfortunately remained unaddressed.
68. The revisional Court also fell into the same error by
confining its inquiry to the question of service of notice and
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (37 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
the expiry of sixty days, without examining whether
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in
the peculiar facts of the present case, amounted to an abuse
of the process of law. The revisional jurisdiction exists
precisely to correct such jurisdictional errors; however, the
impugned revisional order merely affirmed the reasoning of
the learned Magistrate without independently evaluating
these foundational issues.
69. Viewed cumulatively, therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the institution and continuation of
the complaint against the present petitioner suffer from
serious legal infirmities. The complaint neither discloses
compliance with the substantive requirements necessary for
fastening liability under Section 16 of the Act, nor places any
fresh material beyond that already examined during police
investigation, nor establishes any independent basis for
prosecuting the petitioner despite his exclusion from the
police report. In these circumstances, allowing the
prosecution to continue would amount to permitting the
criminal process to be employed as a means of harassment
rather than as an instrument for the administration of
justice.
70. The criminal justice system is intended to protect society
against offenders; it is equally intended to protect citizens
against unwarranted prosecution. The inherent jurisdiction of
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (38 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
this Court exists precisely to prevent such misuse of judicial
process where criminal proceedings, though clothed in legal
form, lack the substantive foundation necessary to justify
continuation. The present case, in the opinion of this Court,
falls squarely within that category.
Cumulative Findings, Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Final Conclusions
71. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the pleadings,
the documentary material placed on record, the scientific
reports, the statutory framework governing the controversy
and the legal principles governing corporate criminal liability,
this Court is persuaded to hold that the continuation of
criminal proceedings against the present petitioner cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. The cumulative effect of the
material available on record unmistakably demonstrates that
the prosecution, insofar as it relates to the present
petitioner, lacks the essential legal and factual foundation
necessary for continuation of criminal proceedings.
72. The first and foremost infirmity which strikes at the very
root of the prosecution is the complete absence of any
specific allegation demonstrating the petitioner’s direct
involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.
Neither the FIR nor the private complaint attributes any
overt act to the petitioner. There is no assertion that he was
present at the concerned plant at the relevant point of time;
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (39 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
no allegation that he supervised the operation of the acid
plant; no material to indicate that he exercised operational
control over the machinery from which the alleged leakage is
stated to have occurred; and no averment whatsoever that
the occurrence resulted from his consent, connivance or
deliberate neglect. The entire prosecution proceeds on the
assumption that the petitioner, by virtue of his senior
designation within the company, must necessarily bear
criminal responsibility for every operational incident
occurring within the industrial establishment. Such an
assumption is wholly incompatible with the settled principles
of criminal jurisprudence.
73. Equally significant is the fact that the investigating agency,
after conducting a detailed investigation pursuant to the
registration of FIR No.327/2005, consciously refrained from
filing a charge-sheet against the present petitioner. The
investigation was not superficial. Technical experts were
associated with the inquiry, scientific reports were obtained
and the operational circumstances surrounding the alleged
incident were examined. Despite such investigation, the
police did not find sufficient material warranting prosecution
of the petitioner. Although such conclusion may not be
binding upon the Magistrate, it nevertheless constituted a
relevant circumstance requiring independent consideration
before the petitioner was summoned to face trial.
Unfortunately, neither the learned Magistrate nor the
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (40 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
revisional Court assigned any cogent reason for discarding
the investigative conclusion insofar as the petitioner was
concerned.
74. The scientific evidence available on record further
compounds the uncertainty surrounding the prosecution
case. The Scene of Occurrence Report attributes the alleged
incident to escape of sulphur trioxide (SO₃) gas owing to
failure of the acid loading pump, whereas the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, upon chemical examination of
the seized samples, did not detect the presence of acid and
instead recorded smell of alcohol in the samples examined.
These two scientific materials, emanating from the same
investigative process, travel on divergent factual premises.
The prosecution has offered no explanation reconciling these
apparent inconsistencies. In criminal law, where scientific
evidence itself suffers from such internal contradictions, the
Court cannot mechanically proceed upon assumptions
unsupported by coherent forensic material.
75. This Court is equally unable to overlook the complete
absence of technical evidence demonstrating that the
petitioner had prior knowledge of any defect in the acid
loading system or that he consciously omitted to rectify any
known hazard. No maintenance record, inspection report,
safety audit, technical communication or internal
correspondence has been produced to indicate that the
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (41 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
petitioner ignored any imminent danger despite being under
a legal obligation to act. In the absence of such material, the
essential ingredients of rashness or criminal negligence
contemplated under Sections 285, 287 and 336 IPC remain
conspicuously absent.
76. The occurrence report itself records that the acid plant was
stopped immediately upon detection of operational
difficulties in the acid loading pump. Prima facie, such
material indicates an attempt to contain the situation rather
than a deliberate disregard of public safety. Industrial
operations involving sophisticated machinery are inherently
susceptible to unforeseen mechanical failures. Criminal law
does not punish every industrial accident; it punishes
culpable negligence. Unless the prosecution demonstrates
that the accident occurred because of a conscious disregard
of foreseeable consequences or a gross omission amounting
to recklessness, penal liability cannot be inferred merely
because an unfortunate incident occurred. The distinction
between an inevitable industrial mishap and criminal
negligence cannot be obliterated.
77. This Court also finds substance in the contention that the
statutory requirements governing prosecution under the
Environment (Protection) Act were not examined in their
proper perspective by the courts below. While the
complainant had issued notice under Section 19 of the Act,
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (42 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
the learned courts appear to have treated the expiry of sixty
days as the sole determinative factor for maintaining the
complaint. They omitted to examine whether the complaint
independently satisfied the mandatory ingredients of Section
16 concerning offences by companies, whether the petitioner
answered the description of a person directly in charge of
and responsible for the conduct of the business giving rise to
the alleged offence, and whether there existed any material
demonstrating consent, connivance or neglect on his part.
These jurisdictional issues were fundamental to the
maintainability of the prosecution but unfortunately
remained substantially unaddressed.
78. The learned Magistrate, while framing charges, was
considerably influenced by the broader constitutional
obligation of industries to protect the environment and by
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C.
Mehta concerning environmental protection. This Court has
no hesitation in reiterating that environmental preservation
constitutes an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Industrial
establishments are unquestionably expected to adhere to the
highest standards of environmental compliance. However,
constitutional concern for environmental protection cannot
justify dilution of the fundamental principles governing
criminal liability. The constitutional importance of
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (43 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
environmental regulation cannot substitute the statutory
requirement of establishing individual criminal culpability.
79. The impugned revisional order suffers from the same legal
infirmity. The revisional Court confined its inquiry principally
to the question whether the complainant had served notice
under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act and
whether the learned Magistrate was justified in proceeding
on that basis. The revisional Court unfortunately failed to
undertake an independent examination of the essential
ingredients of the offences, the absence of specific
allegations against the petitioner, the contradictory scientific
material and the settled law governing vicarious criminal
liability. Consequently, the revisional order merely affirms
the conclusions of the learned Magistrate without rectifying
the jurisdictional errors apparent in the order framing
charge.
80. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that at the
stage of framing of charge the Court is not expected to
meticulously appreciate the evidence. Equally well settled,
however, is the principle that even at that stage there must
exist some legally admissible material disclosing the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court is not
expected to act as a mere post office transmitting allegations
to trial irrespective of their legal sustainability. Where the
foundational facts necessary to constitute the offence are
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (44 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
themselves absent, compelling an accused to undergo the
ordeal of a criminal trial would amount to abuse of the
process of Court.
81. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
criminal prosecution should not be permitted to continue
where the allegations are inherently improbable, where the
complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences, where prosecution is founded upon vague
and omnibus allegations, or where continuation of
proceedings would amount to misuse of judicial process. The
present case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, squarely
falls within these well-recognized parameters warranting
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
82. Before parting, this Court also considers it appropriate to
notice that by virtue of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of
Provisions) Act, 2023, the penal consequences earlier
contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment
(Protection) Act have undergone substantial legislative
transformation and the scheme of prosecution has been
replaced by a regime of civil penalties. Although the alleged
occurrence pertains to a period prior to the amendment and
this Court does not rest its conclusion solely upon the
legislative change, the amendment unmistakably reflects the
legislative policy of decriminalization in respect of
contraventions under the Act. The Supreme Court has
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (45 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
consistently recognized that where subsequent legislation
mitigates the rigour of criminal consequences, such
beneficial legislative developments may legitimately be taken
into consideration while exercising inherent jurisdiction,
particularly where the prosecution itself suffers from serious
foundational defects.
83. Viewed from every conceivable angle, whether from the
standpoint of the absence of specific allegations, the
inapplicability of vicarious liability, the contradictory scientific
evidence, the lack of material establishing rashness or
negligence, the statutory requirements under the
Environment (Protection) Act or the settled principles
governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is left
with no manner of doubt that the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to
permitting the criminal process to be employed for a purpose
wholly alien to the administration of justice.
84. The inherent powers preserved under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
are intended to prevent precisely such situations where the
process of the Court is invoked despite the absence of the
minimum legal foundation necessary for criminal
prosecution. The power is extraordinary, but so are the
circumstances warranting its exercise. To compel the
petitioner to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial extending
over decades despite the glaring legal deficiencies noticed
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (46 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
hereinabove would not advance the cause of justice; rather,
it would perpetuate injustice under the guise of criminal
process.
ORDER
85. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed.
86. The order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal
Revision No.56/2011 affirming the order dated 26.09.2011
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.210/2008,
whereby charges came to be framed against the present
petitioner for offences under Sections 278, 285, 287, 290
and 336 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 15 and
16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
87. Consequently, all criminal proceedings arising therefrom,
insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, stand
quashed.
88. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
89. Before parting, it is considered necessary to clarify that the
present judgment is confined exclusively to the question of
criminal liability of the petitioner and the maintainability of
the impugned criminal proceedings. The findings recorded
herein shall not be construed as an adjudication upon, or as
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31845] (47 of 47) [CRLMP-532/2017]
extinguishing, any independent civil rights or liabilities which
may arise out of the alleged occurrence. Nothing contained
in this judgment shall preclude or proscribe the complainant,
or any other person claiming to have suffered loss, injury or
damage on account of the alleged incident, from pursuing
such civil remedies as may be available in law against the
Company and/or any other person legally responsible,
including proceedings for compensation or damages, strictly
in accordance with law and within the permissible legal
limits. Such claims, if instituted, shall be decided
independently on their own merits, uninfluenced by the
observations made in the present judgment, which are
confined solely to the criminal proceedings under challenge
(FARJAND ALI),J
85/Mamta Tak/330
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 02:20:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 08:56:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
