JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Anuradha Sahay and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. In these petitions, common complaint case and cognizance order have been challenged and that is why, all these petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties. 3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/7 Case No. 15 of 2015 including the order dated 26.02.2015, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitions under Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that a mining lease for iron ore was granted in favour of Tata Steel Limited over an area of 1160.36 hectares in Noamundi, West Singhbhum. It was further alleged that environmental clearance was issued in favour of Tata Steel Limited by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India on 18.05.1994 and thereafter the capacity of the same was enhanced by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India by letter dated 06.04.2005 and the production of iron ore was enhanced from 4.65 MTPA to 7.6 MTPA. The allegations has been made that production has been made beyond the limit prescribed by the Environment Clearance for the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. It was also alleged that for the period commencing from 19941995 to 2004-2005 production capacity was also exceeded. A show cause notice in this regard was issued to the company on 26.09.2014. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 claims to have been authorised by the competent authority to file the complaint by a letter dated 20.02.2015. Based on such authorization, the complaint was brought against the accused company namely Noamundi Iron Ore Mines, Tata Steel Limited and the officials named as accused in the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused nos. 2 to 4 and in the cause title, it has been reflected that they were 'the then Agent' of the Mines and, therefore, they have been made accused in the criminal case. 5. Mr. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused nos. 2 to 4 and in the cause title, it has been reflected that they were 'the then Agent' of the Mines and, therefore, they have been made accused in the criminal case. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was filed on 26.02.2015 and the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa on the same day, after purportedly perusing the complaint observed that a prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and directed issuance of summons against the persons named as accused in the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioners have been alleged as accused in the capacity of agents. He refers Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and submits that the employee and officer of the company, who was directly in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that in view of provision of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted. He further submit that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that the person who was authorised under the Act has filed the complaint case. He also submits that the petitioners were looking to day-to-day affairs of the company. 7. Learned counsel for the State submit that the learned court has taken cognizance under the said Act, which is special provision and this Court may not entertain this petition. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that admittedly these petitioners were posted as Chief and Sr. D.M. (Mines) of Noamundi Iron Mines, Tata Steel Ltd. The learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 26.02.2015 under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 reads as under: “16. D.M. (Mines) of Noamundi Iron Mines, Tata Steel Ltd. The learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 26.02.2015 under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 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.” 9. 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. In the entire complaint petition, there is no averment that these petitioners were incharge and they were looking to the day-to-day affairs of the company. 10. The provisions of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 are parimateria 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. 10. The provisions of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 are parimateria 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 Sma 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 said ingredient is missing in the case in hand. 11. So far as the contention of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is concerned, that is not accepted by this Court. An agent is appointed under the Mines Act, 1952 to look after the compliances as required to be made under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations made thereunder and they ipsofactoare not under any obligation to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not make a Mines Agent liable for non-compliance of any of the provisions of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not accepted by the Court. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/7 Case No. 15 of 2015 including the order dated 26.02.2015, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa is quashed. 13. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and disposed of. 14. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.