Debabratadey vs State of M.P.

R.C. Mishra, J.—Arguments heard. This is a petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''), for quashing of the proceedings, pending as Criminal Case No. 20/10 in the Court of Shri Madhav Rao Ghodki, Baihar Distt. Balaghat. In that case, cognizance of the offences under Sections 2, 9, 51, 57 and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has been taken upon a complaint made by the Forest Range Officer, Birsa Distt. Damoh.

Allegations made in the complaint are that on 5.1.2010, as many as 15 monkeys (macaca mulatto) died after being caught in a muddy area of tailing dam maintained by Malanjkhand Copper Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd. at Baihar, Distt. Balaghat. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager (Concentrator) in the Company.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his prosecution for the offences is an abuse of the process of the Court as it was a case of sheer accident. In support of the arguments, attention has been invited to the following facts-

(i) Malanjkhand Copper Project was established in 1982. The project has been set up by Hindustan Copper Ltd. to extract copper ore through an open pit mine.

(ii) Wet grinding is done in the ball mill and its output is sent to flotation cell where the copper is collected whereas waste material is dispatched to tailing dam by pumping.

Before entering into the merits of the contention, it would be necessary to advert to the provisions of the Act, as mentioned in the complaint-

Section 2(16) of the Act defines hunting as under-

Hunting with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes:-

(a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so;

(b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so;]

(c) Injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles;

Section 9. Prohibition of hunting. - No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided u/s II and section 12.

Section 51 enumerates the penalties

Section 57. Presumption to be made in certain cases.- Where in any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is established that a person is in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawful possession, custody or control of such captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy.

Section 58. Offences by companies.-(1) Where an offence against this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence against this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

Apparently, the presumption, u/s 57 of the Act, is attracted only when the accused is found to be in possession, custody or control of the captive animal, trophy etc. whereas in the instant case, dead bodies of the monkeys were recovered from tailing dam and there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was, in any way, involved in causing wild animals to fall down in the dam.

The complaint nowhere contains such an averment that the petitioner sought to be made liable for the unfortunate incident resulting in deaths of monkeys was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant point of time.

To sum up, even if the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the offence under the Act would not be made out. As such, the case against the petitioner falls under categories (1) and (3) of the cases, as enumerated in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , attracting interference under the inherent powers. The petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cri. Case No. 20/10 (above) are hereby quashed.

C.C. as per rules.