Supreme Court of India
Sanjay Dutt vs The State Of Haryana on 2 January, 2025
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 34
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
Signature Not Verified
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Akshay
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Amritanshu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Date: 2025.01.07
18:18:40 IST
Reason:
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
…….RespondentsINDEX
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 xxxxSd/-
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 Hansraj
officer
Source of information about the Self patrolling/informer/complaint
crime
Date/Day/Time of the
commission of the crime
Name and designation of the Sh. Virender Kumar Sr. Inspector
Investigating Officer
Description of the crime/ No/If yes then No.
incident
Act violated Section
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Punjab Land Conservation Act, Sec-4
1900
Indian Penal Code
Description of Name Father’s Age Caste Address
criminal Name
(1) Satpal Project Sec-113, Gate Vida Bajgeda
Singh Manager
(2) Kamal General Gurugram
Sehgal Manager
(3) Sanjay Director
Dutt
Description of confiscated articles
Details of Type Type/ Numbers Dead Compensation
confiscated Size amount
(1) Kikkar =7 (iv) (3) ________small plants = 62
forest produce (2) Kikkar = 5 (iv) (4) _________ (iv) = 46
(5) ,, ,, (v) = 72
(6) Misc. (u/s) = 126
Details of Type Regd. Color Model Manufacture
vehicle seized No. date
xxxxx Total=ABSTRFC
4
xxxxxx U/s V IV Total
— 7 5 12
126 72 46 244
Total 126 79 51 256
Tools/ Weapons xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
Others, if any xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
Mark the xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
correct
Signature of Informer/ Beat Incharge
Complainant/ Witness Sd/-
Sd/-
Signature/Thumb Impression of F.R.O.
accused
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
1 2 3
Name and address of Regarding which matter Description of statement,
witnesses which the witnesses have
hope for.
Hansaraj Sr. I I/C According to FOR (1) Forest Guard will
Gurugram and Jhadsa No.79/495, the accused depose according to FOR
Beat have committed violation (2) Forest Inspector will
Virender Singh I/C of Section 4 of the depose according to FOR
PLPA, 1900 by
Sultanpur Block (3) Forest Officer will
uprooting 256 trees of
Forest Officer I/C depose according to FOR
Kikkar-and xxxx and 62
Gurugram Range
plants of xxxxx with JCB
from Sec-113, Gate
Vida, Gurugram.
No.I Description of case, which is to be written on all
Sd/-
Sd/-
Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1900
Government of Haryana
Forest Department
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 complainantHeard 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 various 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.
02nd January, 2025.