JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case (F) No.2447 of 2020 renumbered as G (F) Case No.2447 of 2020 as also the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the I.F. Act and Section 3 (A) and 3 (B) of the W.L.P. Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that by destroying the saplings with the Hywa vehicle, N.T.P.C. without the permission of any competent authority, indulged in transportation of coal by crushing the saplings on the way, inside the forest area and it is also alleged that N.T.P.C. has committed encroachment and is involved in illegal transportation. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 who is the Executive Director and the petitioner No.2 who is the Additional General Manager, were involved in this offence, as by their direction/concurrence, the offence has been committed. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the D.F.O., West Forest Division, Hazaribagh the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the said offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in the absence of any provision laid down under a statute, a Director of a company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the company itself; relying upon its own judgment in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya reported in (2006) 10 SCC 581. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and submits that in paragraph-52 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has approbated the statement of two Judge Bench that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the company owning the industrial unit but, regard being had to the factual matrix, namely, the technical fault on the part of the company to furnish the requisite information called for by the Board, directed for making a formal amendment by the applicant and substitute the name of the owning industrial unit; and submits that in this case, as N.T.P.C. has not been arrayed as an accused and the petitioners are only the officers of N.T.P.C., Hazaribagh, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners, be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and fairly submits that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has committed an error in referring the Act in respect of Sections 3A and 3B as W.L.P. Act instead of mentioning the correct Act of the said sections, to be the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 . It is next submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. that the Section 3B (b) envisages a vicarious liability for every person who at the time of offence committed, was directly in- charge of the authority. It is next submitted that there is no material in the record nor even it is the case of the petitioners that they are not the directly in- charge and responsible to the authority concerned being the N.T.P.C. for conduct of business of the authority. It is further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that though the complainant issued notice to the petitioners but the petitioners never appeared before the complainant. Their contention that they have not received any notice from the complainant, is the best defence, that can only be agitated during a full-dress trial of the case but the same cannot be a ground to be considered at this stage. Their contention that they have not received any notice from the complainant, is the best defence, that can only be agitated during a full-dress trial of the case but the same cannot be a ground to be considered at this stage. Hence, it is submitted that the case be remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the matter of cognizance. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has committed a grave illegality by referring the Act in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3A and 3B to be of the W.L.P. Act which may be an acronym for the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but the undisputed fact remains that the prosecution report was submitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 3A and 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 . Section 3B (b) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 casts a vicarious liability upon every person, who at the time of the offence 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. Hence, in view of this vicarious liability, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the cases of S. K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) and Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (supra), which were in respect of the offences for which there was no provision of vicarious liability, is not applicable to the facts of the case. 8. Considering the fact that there is error in respect of the offences mentioned in the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in G (F) Case No.2447 of 2020 as rightly been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and already mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgement, accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.