ORDER : 1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these applications, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Cri. M.P. No. 906 of 2004 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with T.R. No. 1152 of 2004 including the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Cri. M.P. No. 837 of 2003 3. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Forest Case No. 21 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 215 of 2003 including the order dated 2.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P), Bermo at Tenughat, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been - taken for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 2 and 3 of the Forest Conservation Act. Cri. M.P. No. 902 of 2004 4. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with TR-914/2004, including the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Cri. M.P. No. 498 of 2006 5. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Forest Case No. 29 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 1005 of 2005 including the order dated 24.5.2004/16.6.2004, passed by the learned Additional - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 6. The prosecution story in Cr. M.P. No. 906 of 2004 is to the effect that the accused persons named in the prosecution report were carrying on the work of forest cutting/ cleaning in virgin forest land and digging ditches for construction of pillars in forest premises under the personal supervision by engaging 50 labourers. The allegation has also been made that the accused persons did not allow the forest officials to seize the vehicles machineries and materials engaged for the said illegal work. In Cri. M.P. No. 837 of 2003 7. The allegation has also been made that the accused persons did not allow the forest officials to seize the vehicles machineries and materials engaged for the said illegal work. In Cri. M.P. No. 837 of 2003 7. It is alleged that the petitioners by their Acts have violated the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act as well as Indian Forest Act. In Cri. M.P. No. 902 of 2004 8. The prosecution story is to the effect that the accused persons named in the prosecution report were carrying on the work of forest cutting/cleaning in virgin forest land and digging ditches for construction of pillars in forest premises under their personal supervision by engaging 50 labourers. The allegation has also been made that the accused persons did not allow the forest officials to seize the vehicles, machineries and materials engaged for the said illegal work. In Cri. M.P. No. 498 of 2006 9. The allegation has been made that the petitioner were getting the coal mined inside the protected forest of Dhori in plot Nos. 3020 and 3021. It has also been alleged that the residential colony has been constructed over the said plots without prior permission. 10. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned APP for the State. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lands in question had been acquired in phasewise manner under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for mining operation and other ancillary activity. Subsequently the Central Government enacted the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It has been submitted that there was a dispute whether in view of the fact that the lands being acquired under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 were applicable or not and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cri. Appeal No. 70 of 1998 against similar prosecution of the officials of CCL. Mr. Appeal No. 70 of 1998 against similar prosecution of the officials of CCL. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel, further submits that in the said appeal, the State of Jharkhand had agreed that it shall not pursue the prosecution till the final orders are made on the application filed by the CCL under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and in view of the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand, the appeal was withdrawn by the CCL reserving the liberty to challenge any adverse order made under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act as also to raise all such plea in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that 'pursuant to the demand notice made for payment of compensation, the payments have been made by the' CCL. It has been submitted that diversion had been completed and even penal compensation has been paid and which has been received by the Forest Department. Learned counsel also submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners and the offence, if any, has been committed, the petitioners cannot be made vicariously liable for being prosecuted under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel also submits that though there is no provision for vicarious liability in the Forest Conservation Act but in none of the cases, the Company has been made accused and, therefore, in absence of the same, the officials of the company cannot be held responsible or made vicariously liable for any action of the company. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel, further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed a number of criminal proceedings arising out of forest offence in Cri. M.P. No. 918 of 2003 and its analogous cases. 12. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that non-forest activities were going on in the protected forest without prior permission of the Central Government and therefore, a forest offence has definitely been made out against the accused persons. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioners were directly involved in carrying out such activity and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioners have rightly been made accused. 13. Sections 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act are penal provisions but there is no provision for vicarious liability. In order to appreciate the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is quoted herein below : “Section 33. 13. Sections 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act are penal provisions but there is no provision for vicarious liability. In order to appreciate the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is quoted herein below : “Section 33. Penalties for acts in contravention of notification under Section 30 or of rules under Section 32.(1) Any person who commits any of the following offences, namely : (a) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree reserved under Section 30, or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise "damages, any such tree; . (b) contrary to any prohibition under Section 30 quarries any stone, or bums any lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes any forest-produce; (c) contrary to any prohibition under Section 30, breaks up or clears for cultivation or any other purpose any land in protected forest; (d) sets fire to such forests, or kindles a fire without taking all reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading to any tree reserved under Section 30, whether standing, fallen, or felled, or to any closed portion of such forest; (e) leaves burning any fire kindled by him in the' vicinity of any such tree or closed portion; (f) fells any tree or drags any timber so' as to damage any tree reserved as aforesaid; (g) permits cattle to damage any such tree; (h) infringes any rule made under Section 32; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six . months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (2) Whenever fire is caused wilfully or by gross negligence in a protected forest, the (The words "Provincial Government" were substituted for the words "Local Government" by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937.) [(This word was substituted for the word "Provincial" by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. Sub-section (3) was inserted by Gujarat 15 of 1960, Sec. 6 (f)) [State] Government]. may, notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section, direct that in such forest or any portion thereof the exercise of any right of pasture or to forest-produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit. Sub-section (3) was inserted by Gujarat 15 of 1960, Sec. 6 (f)) [State] Government]. may, notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section, direct that in such forest or any portion thereof the exercise of any right of pasture or to forest-produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit. [(3) When a person is convicted, of an offence under sub-section (1), – (a) a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Ranger, (b) a Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, or (c) a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Mahalkari, may evict him from the protected forest in relation to which he has committed the offence.] 14. Thus, from a plain reading of Sections 33 arid 63 of the Act, it is apparent that there is no provision for any vicarious liability under these sections and in absence of any specific averments/ allegations against the petitioners in the prosecution report, the institution of the case against the petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the cognizance taken pursuant thereto are illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 15. So far the prosecution of the petitioners under the Forest (Conservation) Act is concerned, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is not a penal provision, which merely makes provision for restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of the forest land for non-forest purpose. The penal provision in Section 3-A of the said Act Section 3-B of this Act lays down the provision of vicarious liability of the persons directly in-charge and responsible to the authority committing offence of theft. Sections 3-A and 3- B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, read as follows :- "3-A. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act.-Whoever contravenes or . abets the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period which may extend to fifteen days. Sections 3-A and 3- B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, read as follows :- "3-A. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act.-Whoever contravenes or . abets the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period which may extend to fifteen days. 3-B. Offences by authorities and Government departments.-(1) Where any offences under this Act has been committed,- (a) by any department of Government, the head of the department; or (b) by any authority, every person, who at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge, of and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the business of the authority as well as the authority; 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 sub-section shall render the head of the department or any person referred to in clause (b), liable to any punishment 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 punishable under the Act has been committed by a department of Government or any authority referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) 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 officer, other than the head of the departments, or in the case of any authority, any person other than the persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) such officer or persons shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (Emphasis supplied). 16. This Court in Cri M.P. No. 918 of 2003 and its analogous cases had considered the question of vicarious liability under the Forest Conservation Act and has held that since the Central Coalfields Limited, which was carrying out mining activity was not made accused in the cases, no prosecution could be launched against the petitioners without specifically disclosing the part played by them in the alleged offence. 17. 17. Even otherwise, Mis Central Coalfields Limited has already paid the entire amount of compensation as a condition of approval for diversion of forest land for mining and allied purpose as a condition of approval granted by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. Moreover, in similar circumstances, when this Court in Cri. M.P. No. 918 of 2003 and its analogous cases has already quashed the entire criminal proceedings I am inclined to allow these applications. 18. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners in the following cases, viz. (a) T.R No. U52 of 2004 including the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. (b) Forest Case No. 21 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 215 of 2003 including the order dated 2.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P), Bermo at Tenughat. (c) TR-914/2004, including the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, (d) Forest Case No. 29 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 1005 of 2005 including the order dated 24.5.2004/16.6.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat are hereby quashed and these applications are allowed. Applications allowed.