Senior Official Cannot Be Prosecuted for Hindustan Zinc Gas Leak Merely by Designation: Rajasthan High Court

On 09.11.2005 villagers near Putholi, Chittorgarh, complained of coughing and breathlessness after an alleged leak of sulphur gas from Hindustan Zinc's plant (para 2). The police registered an FIR, investigated with forensic experts and charge-sheeted only one plant functionary (paras 2, 12, 25). After serving notice on the Pollution Control Board, the complainant filed a private complaint in 2008 against the company and its senior officers, including the petitioner, a Senior Vice-President/President (paras 2-3, 19). Charges under Sections 278, 285, 287, 290 and 336 IPC and Sections 15 and 16 of the Act were framed in 2011 and upheld in revision in 2016 (paras 1, 4).

Criminal liability is personal, and Section 16 of the Act reaches only a person in charge of the business or an officer by whose consent, connivance or neglect the offence occurred (paras 20-22). The complaint did not say the petitioner supervised the acid plant or that the leak occurred with his consent or neglect, and the police had consciously left him out (paras 23-27). Relying on Sanjay Dutt v. State of Haryana and Datar Switchgear, the Court held that designation alone cannot ground prosecution (paras 30-34). The forensic scene report blamed sulphur trioxide from a failed pump, but the chemical report on the samples found no acid at all (paras 38-40). The plant was shut down promptly, and a mechanical failure is not criminal negligence (paras 44-46). The private complaint added no fresh material and only sought to enlarge the list of accused (paras 57-66). The Court also noted the decriminalisation of the Act by the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 (para 82).