P C CHERIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal R. P. No. 284 of 1978 is against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam, in M. C. No. 4 of 1978. Criminal R. P. No. 328 of 1978 is against the order of the same court in M. C. No. 5 of 1978. The orders impugned were passed under S.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), under similar circumstances in proceedings initiated on the basis of reports of the Sub Inspector of Police, Changanacherry. The reports are dated 21-3-1978.

(2.) The petitioner in Cr. R. P. No. 284 of 1978 is the Managing Partner of the Padinjarekkara Rubber Industries, Veroor, Changanacherry. The petitioner in Cr. R.P. No. 328 of 1978 is the Managing Partner of Aswathi Rubber Works, Veroor, Changanacherry. Both the concerns are having their factories situated in the Industrial Estate, Veroor, and were started for the manufacture of rubber products.

(3.) The preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate against the petitioner in Cr. R. P. No. 284 of 1978 under S.133 of the Code stated that information had been received that the petitioner was engaged in mixing rubber with carbon on a voluminous scale in his factory, that the buildings in which the mixing operations were being carried out were not adequately ventilated, with sufficient devices to prevent the carbon black from escaping into the atmosphere, that in the absence of precautionary measures the carbon black spread in the atmosphere and used to get deposited in the neighbouring locality, where there are a large number of residential houses and a Church very close to the factory; that the deposit of such carbon black affected the life and natural avocations of the people in the locality resulting in disastrous injury and discomfort to the public at large and also affected adversely the religious congregational activities of the Church, causing mental agony to the congregation. The petitioner was required to stop the carbon mixing process on or before 23-3-1978 or to appear before the Court on the same day and show cause why the order should not be enforced. A similar order was passed against the petitioner in Cr. R. P. No. 328 of 1978. Both the petitioners filed objections