JUDGMENT : Argumentsheard. 2.This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( tor 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 acomplaint made by the Forest Range Officer, Birsa Distt . Damon. 3.Allegations made in the complaint are that on 5-1-2010 , as many as 15 monkeys ( inacaca mulatto) died after being caught in a muddy area of tailing dam maintained by Malanjkhand Copper Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd. at Baihar , Dislt . Balaghat . At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Assistant (generalManager (Concentrator) in the Company. 4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his prosecution for theoffences is an abuse of the process of the Court as it was a case of sheeraccident. In support of the arguments, attention has been invited to thefollowing facts : - ( i ) Malanjkhand Copper Project wasestablished in 1982. The project has been set up by Hindustan Copper Ltd. toextract copper ore through an open pit mine. (ii)Wet grinding is done in the ball mill and its output is sent to flotation cellwhere the copper is collected whereas waste material is dispatched to tailingdam by pumping. 5.Before entering into the merits of the contention, it would be necessary toadvert to the provisions of the Act, as mentioned in the complaint: -- "Section2 (16) of the Act defines hunting as under : - Huntingwith its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes: - (a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captiveanimal and every attempt to do so; (b) capturing , coursing, snaring, trapping, driving orbaiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so; (c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the bodyof any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggsof such birds or reptiles or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds orreptiles. Section 9. Prohibition of hunting .- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I. II, III and IVexcept as provided under Section II and Section 12. Section51 enumerates the penalties. Section 57. Section 9. Prohibition of hunting .- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I. II, III and IVexcept as provided under Section II and Section 12. Section51 enumerates the penalties. Section 57. Presumption to be made in certain cases.- Wherein any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is established that aperson is in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animalarticle, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivativethereof, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden ofproving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawfulpossession, 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, everyperson who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and wasresponsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company aswell as the company, shall be 'deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall beliable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Providedthat nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liableto any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without hisknowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission ofsuch offence. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence againstthis Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence hasbeen committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to anyneglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer ofthe company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also bedeemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded againstand punished accordingly. Explanation : -For the purposes of this section,- (a)" company " means any body corporate andincludes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b)" director ", in relation to a firm, means apartner in the firm." 6.Apparently, the presumption, under Section 57 of the Act, is attracted onlywhen the accused is found to be in possession, custody or control of thecaptive animal, trophy etc. whereas in the instant case, dead bodies of themonkeys were recovered from tailing dam and there was nothing on record tosuggest that the petitioner was, in any way, involved in causing wild animalsto fall down in the dam. whereas in the instant case, dead bodies of themonkeys were recovered from tailing dam and there was nothing on record tosuggest that the petitioner was, in any way, involved in causing wild animalsto fall down in the dam. 7.The complaint nowhere contains such an averment that the petitioner sought tobe made liable for the unfortunate incident resulting in deaths of monkeys wasin charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company atthe relevant point of time. 8.To sum up, even if the allegations made against the petitioner in thecomplaint, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, theoffence under the Act would not be made out. As such, the case against thepetitioner falls under categories (1) and (3) of the cases, as enumerated inState of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 , attracting interference underthe inherent powers. 9.The petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cri .Case No. 20/10 (above) are hereby quashed. C.C. as per rules.