JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance dated 06.08.2014, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in complaint Case No. C/7-58 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the prosecution launched against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. 2. It appears that on the direction of Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, dated 08.05.2013, the State Government has directed the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for taking necessary action against Steel Authority of India Ltd. for the irregularities committed by them. Accordingly, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi authorized its Regional Officer to file a case against the concerned unit in the competent Court. Accordingly, present complaint filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, if the offence is committed by the company, then the company as well as the officer directly in charge of the conduct of business of the company are liable to be punished. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the company has not been made accused, nor there is any averment in the entire complaint petition to show that petitioners are in charge of the conduct of business of the company. Accordingly, it is submitted that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the name of petitioners provided by the company and on the basis of said disclosure, they have been made accused in the complaint petition. Accordingly, she submits that there is no illegality in the prosecution. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and State Government vide their letters dated 08.05.2013 and 20.06.2013 has directed the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to take necessary action against the delinquent company under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. But in the instant case, company has not been made accused, nor there is any averment in the entire complaint petition to show that at the relevant time these petitioners are in-charge of the conduct of the business of the said company. Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 reads as under:- 16. But in the instant case, company has not been made accused, nor there is any averment in the entire complaint petition to show that at the relevant time these petitioners are in-charge of the conduct of the business of the said company. Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 reads as under:- 16. Offences by companies-(1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was directly 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 subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, 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 under 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. (b) Director, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 6. From bare perusal of sub-section 1 of Section 16, it is clear that if the offence is committed by a company, the officer who is directly in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company are liable to be punished. 7. It is not out of place to mention that the provisions of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 are paramateria the same of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as well as Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and Section 278 B of the Income Tax Act. 7. It is not out of place to mention that the provisions of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 are paramateria the same of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as well as Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and Section 278 B of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases under Negotiable Instruments Act in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Pental and Another, 2010 (3) SCC 330 has held that it is mandatory for the complainant to make averments in the complaint petition that the accused is directly in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that if the said necessary ingredient is missing in the complaint petition, then in that case, prosecution launched against the accused cannot be sustained. 8. Similar view taken by this Court in M/s. D.N. Singh Construction Co. Chitra Deoghar vs. State of Bihar, 2012 (2) JCR 502 and A.P. Arya vs. State of Jharkhand and Others while dealing with the provisions of Section 278B of the Income Tax Act and Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 respectively. In both the aforesaid cases, this Court also took the view that if there is no averment in the complaint petition that the accused persons are directly in charge and are responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, then their prosecution is bad. 9. In cases where the offence is committed by the company, it is necessary that the company should also be made accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, 2012 (5) SCC 661 has held that if company has not been made accused then the prosecution case will be illegal. In the instant case, as noticed above, the company has not been made accused. Thus, on that ground also, the criminal proceeding launched against the petitioners is bad. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find that continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. In the instant case, as noticed above, the company has not been made accused. Thus, on that ground also, the criminal proceeding launched against the petitioners is bad. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find that continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint Case No. C/7-58 of 2014, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.