IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P No. 1011 of 2019
      Harsh Vardhan Bajaj                             .... .... Petitioner(s).
                                  Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Dilip Kumar, Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board,
         having its Regional Office at CTI Colony Qr. No. B-1 Dhurwa PO & PS
         Dhurwa, Ranchi and Head Office at Township Administration Building, HEC
         Complex, Dhurwa, PO & PS Dhurwa, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
                                                     .... .... Opposite Party(s)
                                 ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP

------

04/18.11.2019 Heard Counsel for the parties.

By filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 9.9.2014 in C.G. No. 17 of 2014 whereby cognizance of offence has been taken under Section 16 of the Pollution (Control) Act, 1986.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the impugned order it would be quite clear that without application of mind the cognizance order has been passed. He submits that there is no legislation known as the Pollution Control Act. He further submits that even if for the sake of argument the act is taken to be Environment Protection Act, 1986 then also cognizance cannot be taken under 16 of the said Act. He submit that this clearly shows that cognizance order is mechanical without there being any application of mind.

Learned APP tries to support the order by taking this Court through the complaint petition saying that offence has been made out but so far as question of taking cognizance is concerned he admits that no cognizance can be taken under Section 16 of the Pollution (Control) Act. He further submits that there is no legislation as Pollution Control Act, 1986.

I have gone through the impugned order. It is necessary to quote the entire impugned order:-

" The case Record put up for hearing on the point of cognizance.

Case record, it is perusal from it transpires that the offence cum it's petition has been submitted in this case against the accused 1) Harsh Vardhan Bajaj, Director, Resident of Parijat, OPP. Shivajee Maidan Daltonganj and 2) M/s Prijat Mining Industrial (I) Pvt. Ltd. For the offence u/s:- 15 of -2- Environment (Protection) Act 1986, and 19 of the same nature of offence.

Perusal of the case record further transpires that there is a prima facie case is made out against the aforesaid accused and its company Pvt. Ltd. For the offence u/s :- 16 of the Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore cognizance is taken for the offence u/s:- 16 of Pollution (Control) Act, 1986 against the aforesaid accused persons and its company Pvt. Ltd. Issue summons to the accused and put up on 24.2.2015."

From the impugned order, it is clear that a complaint was filed under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The court found that offence under Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is made out and thereafter cognizance under Section 16 of the Pollution (Control) Act. 1986 has been taken. There are two glaring errors in the impugned order. First one is that Section 16 of the Environment Protection Act relates to offence committed by the company. It is not a penal provision. It only enables attraction of vecarious liability upon every person, who at the time of offence, was directly in-charge of the company and was responsible to the company. Thus no cognizance can be taken under Section 16 of the Environment Protection Act. Secondly, I find that cognizance has been taken under Section 16 of the Pollution (Control) Act, 1986. There is no Pollution (Control) Act, 1986 which is in existence. Thus, the cognizance has been taken in absolutely mechanical manner without application of mind. Thus, the impugned order dated 9.9.2014 is set aside and the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.

The matter is remanded to the court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after going through the specific provision of law. Only on this ground alone, the order taking cognizance is set aside and I have not entertained the other points which has been raised by the petitioner.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/ C.P 3