SUNIL AGRAWAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner herein who is standing trial for commission of offence under Sections 37 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act , 1981 (for short, 'the Air Act '), has filed this petition calling in question the impugned order dated 23-9-2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No.191/2019, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of the trial Magistrate rejecting his preliminary objection on the maintainability of the complaint filed before the jurisdictional criminal court for commission of the aforesaid offences on the complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC filed by the respondent Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (for short, 'the Board').

(3.) On the complaint filed by the respondent Board for violation of Sections 21 and 22 of the Air Act and for commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner herein who is the Director of M/s. Niros Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner appeared and filed preliminary objection that by virtue of Section 43 of the Air Act, cognizance of the aforesaid offences can be taken either by the Board or by any officer authorised in this behalf by it, but, in the instant case, the Regional Officer of the Board has been authorised by the Chairman of the Board by order dated 11-9-2002 to file complaint against the petitioner, as such, such a complaint is not maintainable and is hit by Section 43(1)(a) of the Air Act. The said objection was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate and in revision filed by the petitioner, the revisional Court has affirmed that order and dismissed the revision. Calling in question that order, the instant petition has been preferred in which return has been filed by respondents No.1 & 2 Board supporting the order taking cognizance stating inter alia that subsequently, the Board by order dated 22-12-2007 (Annexure R-1) has authorised the Regional Officer of the Board to file complaint against the petitioner, therefore, the defect, if any, stands cured and the complaint as filed and cognizance taken is maintainable.