Question

Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, when an offence is committed by a company, every person in charge and responsible at the time is deemed guilty, unless he proves lack of knowledge or due diligence.
Conclusions:
I. A company as well as its responsible officers may be held liable for environmental offences under the Act.
II. An officer of a company can never escape liability once the company is found guilty of an offence.
Which one of the following is correct?

• A. Only Conclusion I follows
• B. Only Conclusion II follows
• C. Both Conclusions I and II follow
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Hint:

Company + Officers are liable → BUT officers can escape liability by proving due diligence.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding company liability under the Act.
Section 16 states that both the company and persons in charge are liable unless the officer proves lack of knowledge or due diligence.
Step 2: Checking Conclusion I.
This is correct because both company and officers may be held liable.
Step 3: Checking Conclusion II.
Conclusion II is false because officers can escape liability by proving due diligence or absence of knowledge.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Thus, only Conclusion I follows.