1 2025:CGHC:6299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2058 of 2018 Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer Regional Office Bajrang Bhawan Namnakala, Ring Road Ambikapur District Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Secl Hasdeo Area Post West Jhagarakhand Colliery, District Korea Chhattisgarh, Through Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari General Manager (Present), Office Of General Manager Secl Hasdeo Area Post Office South Jhagarakhand Colliery, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri G.K. Khudiyar Mines Manager (Present) M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery,seclhasdeo Area Post West Jhagarakhand District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Prabhakar Jha The Then Mines Manager M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Secl Hasdeo Area Post West Jhagarakhand Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh Present Address Mines Manager Kurasiya Underground Mines Post Office Kurasiya Colliery S.E.C.L. Chirimiri Area District Korea Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri B.K. Narendra Sub Area Manager (Present) M/s The Then AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Mines Manager M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Secl Hasdeo Area Post West Jhagarakhand Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri N.M. Tripathi The Then Sub Area Manager M/s The Then Mines Manager M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Secl Hasdeo Area Post West Jhagarakhand Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh Present Address Sub Area Manager Rehar/gayatri /jai Nagar,sub Area Secl Bishrampur Area, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari General Manager (Present) Office Of General Manager Secl Hasdeo Area Post Offfice South Jhagarakhand Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh. 7 - M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited (M/s West Jhagarakhand Colliery ) Village Jhagarakhand Post Office West Jhagarakhand Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh Through M.K. Thaper The Then Chairman Cum Managing Director, SECL HQ, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Chhattisgarh, Present Address - B/7 Anmol Apartment, Clerk Town Kadvi Chowk Nagpur Maharashtra, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the Court below and set-aside/quash the 3 impugned order dated 07.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned JMFC, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No.226/2010, in the interest of justice. It is also prayed that the Hon’ble Court may pass such order as it deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) is a company that operates mines for coal excavation. The West Jhagarakhand Colliery is one of the collieries under the Hasdeo Area of SECL, and the General Manager is the head of the area. The respondents (2-7) are all employees of SECL and are in charge of the West Jhagarakhand Colliery. The complaint case alleges that the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, issued a notification on January 27, 1994, and subsequent notifications on April 10, 2009, and September 14, 2006, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which imposed restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new projects in India unless environmental clearance was obtained from the Central or State Government. The case further alleges that the M.P. Pollution Control Board granted consent to the West Jhagarakhand Colliery for the excavation of 270,000 metric tons of coal per year on November 13, 1995, under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 4 4. The accused persons, who are officers of the West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Hasdeo Area of SECL, have been increasing their coal production capacity without obtaining the necessary environmental clearances, they excavated 285,000 metric tons of coal in 1999-2000, which is more than the quantity for which they had obtained consent from the M.P. Pollution Control Board they gradually increased their production to 3,073,356 metric tons in 2005-2006, which is significantly more than the consented quantity they did not obtain prior environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, as required under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, they violated sections 6 and 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which are punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the same Act, they also operated the mines without obtaining prior permission from the M.P. Pollution Control Board for their increased capacity, as required under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 5. The accused persons, who are officers of the West Jhagarakhand Colliery, Hasdeo Area of SECL, were sent several letters and reminders by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, as well as notices and directions under environmental law, but they ignored them and continued to excavate coal in violation of environmental regulations. The accused persons' actions were in 5 breach of the consent granted to them under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and also violated sections 6 and 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which are punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the same Act. The Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, accorded environmental clearance to the West Jhagarakhand Colliery on September 6, 2006, but it was noted that the accused persons had operated the mines without environmental clearance before that date and had increased their production capacity without valid permission. The Ministry of Environment and Forest directed the state government and the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board to take action against the accused persons for the period during which they operated the mines without environmental clearance, which is considered a period of violation. As a result, the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board filed a criminal complaint case against the officers responsible for the West Jhagarakhand Colliery before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Manendragarh, Korea district, for offenses punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 6. The complaint case, registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 226/2010, was filed by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board against the accused persons for violating the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The accused persons, who are 6 officers of the West Jhagarakhand Colliery, appeared before the court and filed an application for dismissal of the complaint case, stating that the complainant Board was not competent to file the case as they were not authorized by the Central Government. They also claimed that they are public servants and that the complainant had not obtained the required sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, as per section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner Board denied these contentions, stating that the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. were not applicable in this case and that the accused persons are not public servants according to section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The Board also stated that they have the power to file complaint cases under Environmental Law. The learned JMFC passed an order dated 07.10.2017, holding that the accused persons are protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and that the complaint case is not maintainable against them without obtaining sanction for prosecution. As a result, the case was closed, and the accused persons were discharged from the alleged offense. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main issue here is whether the Regional Officer of the C.G. Environment Conservation Board has the authority to file a complaint. According to the law, all Regional Officers of the Board are authorized to file complaint cases under Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 43 of 7 the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. This authorization was given by the M.P. Pollution Control Board in Meeting No. 68 dated 18.04.1991, and was later adopted by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board in its first meeting held on 09.08.2001. Additionally, under Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Central Government has authorized the Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board to take cognizance of offenses. The orders and letters of authorization have been filed by the petitioner, the complainant Board, along with the complaint case before the learned JMFC. He further submits that both learned trial Court should have considered the object, nature, and scope of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It is a well-established principle that not all actions taken by a public servant in the course of their official duties are automatically protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. There can be instances where a public servant misuses or abuses their power, which cannot be considered as part of their official duties. The purpose of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious, or false prosecutions that are intended to harass or embarrass them. However, if a public servant misuses their authority to do something that is not permitted under the law, they cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. In such cases, where a public servant has exceeded their authority or misused their power, no protection can be afforded to them, and they can be prosecuted for such 8 excesses or misuse of authority. In other words, Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not a blanket protection for public servants, and it only applies to actions that are taken in good faith and within the scope of their official duties. If a public servant has acted in excess of their authority or has misused their power, they can be held accountable for their actions, and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. will not provide them with any protection. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.10.2017, passed by the trial Court, is bad in law and against the evidence, and therefore, liable to be set- aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 07.10.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 226/2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District - Korea (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/accused persons for dismissal of complaint case, discharged the accused 9 persons and closed the Criminal Complaint Case filed by the petitioner Board for the offence under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil