2025 INSC 34 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11 OF 2025

(@ SLP (Crl) No. 7464/2024)

SANJAY DUTT & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated

08-12-2022 in CRMM No.55268 of 2022 by which the High Court

rejected the petition filed by the appellants herein invoking

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose

of quashing of complaint no. 41 of 2022 lodged by the Range

Forest Officer for the alleged offence under Section 4 of the

Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short “the Act, 1900”)

punishable under Section 19 of the Act, 1900.

3.We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Akshay

Amritanshu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2

4.The short point that falls for our consideration is

whether the plain reading of the complaint lodged by the Range

Forest Officer discloses commission of any offence alleged to

have been committed under Section 4 read with Section 19 of

the Act, 1900.

5.The complaint reads thus:-

“PC No.1G/2022-23

Case No.41/22

7-9-22

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

SPECIAL ENVIRONMENT COURT, FARIDABAD

IN THE MATTER OF

Range Forest Officer Gurugram …….Applicants

Vs.

(1)Satpal Singh Project Manager

(2)Kamal Sehgal General Manager

(3)Sanjay Dutt Director, Sec-113

Bajgera Gurugram

…….Respondents

INDEX

S. No.Particular Page No.

1. Report of Forest etc. 1-2

2. Notice issued to Forest Criminals 3-4

3. Form No.21 5-6

4. Form No.22 7-8

5. Notification 9-10

6. Statement of Forest Guard 11-12

7. Statement of Forest Inspector 13-14

8. Site plan of Forest crime scene 15-16

9. Reply of forest criminal 17-19

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Sd/-

Range Forest Officer,

Gurugram

Forest Crime Report

3

Forest Department, Government of Haryana

FOR Book No.0495 FOR No.079

Forest Division Gurugram

Range/Bloc/Beat Gurugram/Mullanpur/Jhadsa

Reach/Name of the place Sec-113-Gate vida GGM

FOR No. (Date, Day & Time)079/10495-02/09/2021

Name of the report issuing

officer

Hansraj

Source of information about the

crime

Self patrolling/informer/complaint

Date/Day/Time of the

commission of the crime

Name and designation of the

Investigating Officer

Sh. Virender Kumar Sr. Inspector

Description of the crime/

incident

No/If yes then No.

Act violated Section

Indian Forest Act, 1927

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

Punjab Land Conservation Act,

1900

Sec-4

Indian Penal Code

Description of

criminal

Name Father’s

Name

Age CasteAddress

(1)Satpal

Singh

Project

Manager

Sec-113, Gate Vida Bajgeda

Gurugram

(2)Kamal

Sehgal

General

Manager

(3)Sanjay

Dutt

Director

Description of confiscated articles

Details of

confiscated

forest produce

Type Type/

Size

NumbersDeadCompensation

amount

(1) Kikkar =7 (iv) (3) ________small plants = 62

(2) Kikkar = 5 (iv) (4) _________ (iv) = 46

(5) ,, ,, (v) = 72

(6) Misc. (u/s) = 126

Details of

vehicle seized

Type Regd.

No.

ColorModelManufacture

date

xxxxx Total=ABSTRFC

4

xxxxxx U/s V IV Total

-- 7 5 12

126 72 46 244

Total 126 79 51 256

Tools/ Weaponsxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Others, if anyxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark the

correct

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Signature of Informer/

Complainant/ Witness

Sd/-

Beat Incharge

Sd/-

Signature/Thumb Impression of

accused

F.R.O.

Name

Rank

Dated

PC No.1G/2022-23

Notice No.219.G

Dated: 2/9/2021

Notice

Indian Forest Act, 1900 Sec-4

Name : (1)Satpal Singh Project Manager

Address: (2)Kamal Sehgal General Manager

(3)Sanjay Dutt Director,

Sec-113, Gate Vida

Bajgera Gurugram

Forest Damage Report No.079/495 has been received against you. Due to the forest crime committed by

you, the environment has been harmed. According to damage report you have illegally uprooted trees

situated in the area of Sec-113 Gate Vida, Gurugram, with JCB, destroyed them, and have violated the

Sec-4 of the Indian Forest Act PLPA, 1900. You are hereby informed through this notice that you

should appear before the undersigned on or before 7-9-2021 and explain your position that why a

complaint should not be filed against you in the Environment Court, Faridabad as per the above said

Indian Forest Act.

5

Forest Block Officer

Forest Area: Sultanpur

Range: Gurugram

PC No.1G/2022-23

Case No…… Description of incident Range…. Police Station….District

Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1900

Government of Haryana

Forest Department

1 2 3

Name and address of

witnesses

Regarding which matterDescription of statement,

which the witnesses have

hope for.

Hansaraj Sr. I I/C

Gurugram and Jhadsa

Beat

Virender Singh I/C

Sultanpur Block

Forest Officer I/C

Gurugram Range

According to FOR

No.79/495, the accused

have committed violation

of Section 4 of the

PLPA, 1900 by

uprooting 256 trees of

Kikkar-and xxxx and 62

plants of xxxxx with JCB

from Sec-113, Gate

Vida, Gurugram.

(1) Forest Guard will

depose according to FOR

(2) Forest Inspector will

depose according to FOR

(3) Forest Officer will

depose according to FOR

No.I Description of case, which is to be written on all

Sd/-

Sd/-

6

Order

Dated, January 4, 2013

No.S.O.8/P.A.2/1900/S.4/2013-Whereas the Governor of Haryana is satisfied after due

inquiry, that for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900

(Punjab Act 2 of 1900), the regulations, the conditions and the prohibition set out hereinafter are

necessary.

Therefore, now, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the above said

Act, the Governor of Haryana, hereby in the Schedule given below, specifically prohibits the following

works in the specified areas, for a period of fifteen years from the date of publication of this Order in the

Official Gazette, which has been notified under Section 3 of the above said rule by the Government of

Haryana, Forest Department vide Notification No. S.O.81/P.A.2/1900/S.3/2012 dated 19th December,

2012.

(a)The cutting of trees or timber other than Safeda, Popular, Bacain, Bass, Toot and Alan-

thak, and the collection or removal of flowers, fruits and any produce of different forest,

except for the actual domestic or any manufacturing process. Provided that the land

owner may sell trees or timber after obtaining a permit from the concerned Divisional

Officer before doing so. Such permit shall prescribe such conditions for any sale as may

be deemed necessary from time to time in the interest of forest conservation and 11

state farmers will be free to sell their trees to any person/Agency/ Haryana and Devel-

opment Corporation Limited at their will. So as to enable them to get remunerative

price for their produce, provided that the land owner may sell their trees after obtaining

permission to do so from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

P.C. No.1G/2022-23

FOR No.79/495

Dated 2-9-2021

Statement of Forest Guard

Sir,

The spot was inspected. The accused has uprooted the tress standing on the inspected

spot through JCB, the dt. of which has been recorded.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Certified to be true translation

Advocate

7

P.C. No.1G/2022-23

FOR No.79/495

Dated 2-9-2021

Statement of Forest Inspector

Sir,

I do hereby solemnly affirm that upon receiving FOR No.79/495 dated 2-9-2021, the

spot was inspected. Wherein on the spot at Sec-113, Gate Vida, Bajgera, Kikkar and different types of

trees were found to be uprooted with the JCB and small plants of different types were destroyed.

According to FOR, the damage is found to be correct. The accused were issued notice for violating

Section 4 of the PLPA, 1900. But the accused did not give any satisfactory answer. In this FOR, after

preparing PC case of the accused, the same was given to Forest Range Office, Gurugram for presenting

before the Environment Court, Faridabad. This is my statement

Sd/-

6.It appears from the materials on record that the

Presiding Officer-cum-JMIC, Special Environment Court

Faridabad took cognizance of the complaint, referred to above

and issued process for the offence punishable under Section 19

of the Act, 1900. The order issuing process reads: -

“DFO Vs Satpal etc

Present Sh Gordhan Das, Forester; Gurugram on

behalf of the complainant

Heard on the point of summoning of accused

In the challan and the documents attached

thereto, it is alleged by the complainant that

on 02.09.2021, in the area of sector 113 Gate

Vida Gurugram, (this area has been notified

under the Forest Act, so, same belongs to the

Forest Department), the accused destroyed 256

trees using JCB It is also claimed by the

complainant that the illegal act committed by

the above named accused, has caused a loss to

the tune of Rs 90580/- (Rupees Ninty Thousand

Five Hundred Eighty Only) to the Forest

Department.

8

In view of the allegations leveled against the

accused in the challan and perusal of original

documents appended herewith, this court is of

the opinion that a prima-facie case is made

out against the accused for indulging in said

illegal activity which led to the commission

of an offence, punishable u/s 19 of the Punjab

Land Preservation Act, 1900.

Accordingly, accused is hereby ordered to be

summoned on 07.09.2022 and same is directed to

appear in person in the court.

(Seema)

PO Spl Env Court,

Faridabad UID HR0387

02.05.2022”

7.We are informed that the aforesaid complaint bearing CIS

No.COMA-134-2024 has now been transferred to the district

Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gurugram.

8.It is not in dispute that so far as the appellant no.1 is

concerned he is the Managing Director and Chief Executive

Officer of a company namely TATA Realty and Infrastructure

Limited and Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. So far as the

appellant no.2 is concerned, he at the relevant point of time

was the General Manager and is currently the Assistant Vice

President of Tata Realty and Infrastructure Limited in its

Corporate Relations Group and so far as the appellant no.3 is

concerned he at the relevant point of time was the erstwhile

employee/Senior Manager of the company namely ‘Sector 113

Gatevida Developers Private Limited’ (formerly known as Lemon

Tree and Developers Private).

Relevant Provisions of Law:

9

9.Section 4 of the Act, 1900 reads thus:-

“4. Power to regulate, restrict or prohibit,

by general or special order, within notified

areas, certain matters.— In respect of areas

notified under section 3 generally or the

whole or any part of any such area, the

Provincial Government] may, by general or

special order temporarily regulate, restrict

or prohibit—

(a) the clearing or breaking up or cultivating

of land not ordinarily under cultivation prior

to the publication of the notification under

section 3;

(b) the quarrying of stone or the burning of

lime at places where such stone or lime had

not ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior

to the publication of the notification under

section 3;

(c) the cutting of trees or timber, or the

collection or removal or subjection to any

manufacturing process, otherwise than as

described in clause (b) of this sub-section of

any forest-produce other than grass, save for

bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes [of

rightholder in such area];

(d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or

forest produce;

(e) the admission, herding, pasturing or

retention of sheep,[goats or camels];

(f) the examination of forest-produce passing

out of any such area; and

(g) the granting of permits to the inhabitants

of towns and villages situate within the

limits or in the vicinity of any such area, to

take any tree, timber or forest produce for

their own use therefrom, or to pasture sheep,

[goats or camels] or to cultivate or erect

buildings therein and the production and

return of such permits by such persons.”

Section 19 of the Act, 1900 reads thus:-

10

“19. Penalty for offences.— Any person who,

within the limits of any area notified under

section 3, commits any breach of any

regulation made, [restriction or prohibition

imposed, order passed or requisition made

under sections 4, 5, 5-A, or 7-A] shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to one month, or with a fine which

may extend to one hundred rupees, or with

both”

10.We take notice of the fact that having regard to the

Scheme of the Act, 1900, there is no vicarious liability that

can be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers

of the company. It is the individual liability or the act

that would make the person concerned liable for being

prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 19 of the

Act, 1900. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it

is difficult for us to take the view that the appellants

herein are responsible for the alleged offence. There are no

allegations worth the name in the complaint that the three

appellants before us are directly responsible for uprooting of

the trees with the aid of Bulldozers or JCB machines or

causing damage to the environment. The persons who were

actually found at the site felling the trees have not been

arrayed as accused in the complaint . Although the license /

necessary permission for development of the land in the

specified area had been granted in favour of the company, yet

for the reasons best known to the complainant the company has

not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint.

11

11.It appears that the Courts below proceeded on the

erroneous assumption that the three appellants herein being

responsible officers of the company are liable for the

alleged offence. While a company may be held liable for the

wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its

directors is not automatic. It depends on specific

circumstances, particularly the interplay between the

director’s personal actions and the company’s

responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable only

if the company itself is liable in the first place and if

such director personally acted in a manner that directly

connects their conduct to the company’s liability. Mere

authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the

exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or

activities of the company is not enough to render a director

vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that

such actions of the director stemmed from their personal

involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside

the scope of its routine corporate duties. Thus, where the

company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors

cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any

statutory provision to this effect. There has to be a

specific act attributed to the director or any other person

allegedly in control and management of the company, to the

effect that such a person was responsible for the acts

committed by or on behalf of the company.

12

12.At the same time, wherever by a legal fiction the

principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person

who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of

an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be

specifically provided in the statute concerned. When it comes

to penal provisions, vicarious liability of the managing

director and director would arise provided any provision

exists in that behalf in the statute. Even where such

provision for fastening vicarious liability exists, it does

not mean that any and all directors of the company would be

automatically liable for any contravention of such statute.

Vicarious Liability would arise only if there are specific

and substantiated allegations attributing a particular role

or conduct to such director, sufficient enough to attract the

provisions constituting vicarious liability and by extension

the offence itself.

13.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence

that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute

specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has

perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a

company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for

such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his

active role coupled with criminal intent. The primary

responsibility is on the complainant to make specific

averments as are required under the law in the complaint so

13

as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening

criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no

presumption that every officer of a company knows about the

transaction in question.

14.The allegations which find place against the appellants

herein in their personal capacity seem to be absolutely

vague. When a complainant intends to rope in a Managing

Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make

requisite allegations to constitute the vicarious liability.

15.When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition

filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC,

the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind

carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint of the

present nature.

16.The High Court failed to pose unto itself the correct

question i.e., as to whether the complaint even if given face

value and taken to be correct in its entirety would lead to

the conclusion that the appellants herein were personally

liable for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1900 made

punishable under Section 19 of the Act, 1900.

17. In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company

Limited and Anr., v. Datar Switchgear Limited and Ors., as

reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479, wherein, the Chairman of the

Maharashtra State Electricity Board was made an accused for

the offence under Sections 192 and 199 respectively read with

Section 34 of the IPC, this Court observed thus:

14

“30. It is trite law that wherever by a legal

fiction the principle of vicarious liability is

attracted and a person who is otherwise not

personally involved in the commission of an

offence is made liable for the same, it has to

be specifically provided in the statute

concerned. In our opinion, neither Section 192

IPC nor Section 199 IPC incorporate the

principle of vicarious liability, and

therefore, it was incumbent on the complainant

to specifically aver the role of each of the

accused in the complaint . It would be

profitable to extract the following

observations made in S.K. Alagh: (SCC p.667,

para 19)

“19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in

the name of the company, even if the

appellant was its Managing Director, he

cannot be said to have committed an offence

under Section 406 of the Penal Code. If and

when a statute contemplates creation of

such a legal fiction, it provides

specifically therefor. In absence of any

provision laid down under the statute, a

Director of a company or an employee cannot

be held to be vicariously liable for any

offence committed by the company itself .”

(Emphasis supplied)

18.In such circumstances, referred to above, no case could

be said to have been made out for putting the three

appellants to trial for the alleged offence. The Court

concerned could not have issued process for the alleged

offence.

19.In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is

hereby allowed. The impugned complaint and order taking

cognizance of the said complaint is hereby quashed.

20.We clarify that if it is the case of the department that

15

the company has committed any breach or violation of any of

the conditions imposed at the time of grant of license, then

it is always open for authority concerned to proceed against

the company for violation of such terms and conditions.

21.Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……………………………………………J.

[J.B. PARDIWALA]

……………………………………………J.

[R. MAHADEVAN]

New Delhi.

02

nd

January, 2025.