NANDALAL RUNGTA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer seeking quashing of the Chargesheet No. 7 dtd. 26/3/2013, filed by Balasore Vigilance P.S. in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011 and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom; quashing of the order of cognizance dtd. 3/6/2013 passed in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011 by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar and quashing of the Chargesheet No. 62 dtd. 31/12/2012 filed by Balasore Vigilance P.S. in VGR Case No. 21 of 2011 and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom; quashing of the order of cognizance dtd. 22/2/2013 passed in VGR Case No. 21 of 2011 by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar, for the alleged commission of offences u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act, 1988"), Ss. 420/379/434/447/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR Act, 1957") and Sec. 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ("FC Act, 1980"). As both the petitions involve similar facts and relate to the same Petitioner, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present matter are as follows:

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that absolutely no specific role has been attributed to the Petitioner in respect of any of the allegations, who is merely a partner in the lessee firm M/s Mangilall Rungta and no more than one of many directors in the lessee company M/s Rungta Mines (P) Ltd. It is trite in law that save and except in some specific cases, wherein the statute specifically incorporates the principle of vicarious liability, the principle cannot be extended to be applicable to all Acts. It is submitted that the Indian Penal Code does not envisage application of principle of 'vicarious liability' to a person who is not directly charged for the commission of an offence and a person therefore cannot be made an accused merely by virtue of his official position in the absence of any specific role being attributed to him. Therefore, the role of the accused has to be clearly, unambiguously and specifically averred in the complaint; a bald assertion shall hold no water. It is thus submitted that there cannot be an automatic presumption against a Director or a Partner.