Kharkhoda Civil Court: In a criminal case filed against a farmer for burning stubble, the Single Judge Bench of Vikrant, J., discharged the accused, holding that the ban on burning stubble was no longer in force on the day that he allegedly burnt the stubble and thus, there was no offence or violation committed by him. The Court also condemned the District authorities for penalising the accused with double the amount of fine that he was supposed to pay.
Background
Allegedly, the accused had burnt stubble/parali in his land. After receipt of information about this and a physical inspection, a complaint was lodged against the accused under Section 223 (a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The final report concluded that he had violated the order that was issued by the District Magistrate (‘DM’), Sonipat, under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), restraining burning of stubble in the fields in compliance of the order dated 10-10-2024 issued by National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, and Commission for Air Quality Management, New Delhi.
The accused contended that he was issued a receipt/challan regarding the violation after he paid a fine of Rs 5000. As per the receipt, the Principal Secretary, Environment Department, Haryana (‘Environment Department’) had authorized the District Level Committee, Sonipat (‘DLC’), to recover environment compensation from the offending farmer.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that as per the receipt, a farmer found that burning paddy stubble/wheat straw having an area less than 2 acres would pay Rs 2500, for an area between 2 and 5 acres, he would pay Rs 5000, and for an area above 5 acres, the farmer would pay Rs 15000 as environmental compensation. However, in the present case, the accused’s land was less than 2 acres, but he was compelled to pay double the fine amount/environmental compensation, i.e., Rs 5000, without any justification or without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
“This is a serious wrongdoing on the part of the District Level Committee, Sonipat, and it amounts to unjust and unlawful enrichment of the District Level Committee by causing wrongful loss to a helpless farmer.”
The Court stated that on the face of it, there was no justification for the recovery of Rs 2500 more than the specified amount. The Court remarked, “It is apparently a matter of putrescence and dishonesty prevailing in the DLC, which needs inquiry from the appropriate authority.”
The Court further remarked that a citizen of this country was condemned unheard, and he was forced to pay the fine amount, which the DLC, headed by the DM, could not even impose within the domain of its authority. Thus, the Court directed that a copy of this order be sent to the State Human Rights Commission, Haryana, and the Environment Department through the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Sonipat, for taking appropriate action against the erring officials of the District Administration.
Regarding the issue of taking cognizance, the Court noted that Section 215 of the BNSS specified that for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 206 to 223 of the BNS (both inclusive), cognizance shall be taken by the Court only based on a written complaint by the public servant concerned, or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, or some other public servant who is authorized by the public servant concerned.
In the present case, the Court noted that, along with the charge sheet, no such authorization letter on behalf of the DM was placed on record. No written complaint was made by the DM or any other officer/public servant authorized by him for the alleged violation by the accused. No written complaint was addressed to the Court.
The Court further noted that the police complaint was made by the patwari based on the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner authorising the DLC to take punitive action against defaulting farmers. However, no separate complaint for taking cognizance for prosecution of contempt of the lawful authority of a public servant was made for taking cognizance based on the final report of the investigation. Thus, the Court held that cognizance of the offence could not be taken.
The Court also noted that the DM’s order barring stubble burning remained in force from 12-09-2024 to 10-11-2024, whereas the complaint was made on 15-11-2024 for the incident dated 14.11.2024, i.e., the order was not in force on the date of the alleged violation. Thus, the question of violation of the DM’s order did not arise, and there was no offence. Furthermore, instead of closing the FIR, the final report was filed without verification of relevant facts.
Accordingly, the Court discharged the accused and awarded him compensation of Rs 1000 under Section 399 of the BNSS for loss of time and expenses. The Court further directed that if the compensation was not paid within 30 days, an application for recovery of the amount from the State Exchequer can be made to the Court.
[State of Haryana v. Ravinder, CIS No. CHI- 269 of 2025, decided on 30-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: APP Vikram Singh
For the respondent: Advocate Mohit Kaushik