PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD Vs. SABU THOZHUPPADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are accused Nos.1,5 and 6 in C.C.No.105 of 2002 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, which is a case instituted upon a private complaint preferred by the first respondent herein. THE challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 19.9.2009 of the above court by which the learned Magistrate has found that the complainant had succeeded in making out a prima facie complaint against the present revision petitioners and the case would be proceeded against them. THE complaint is filed under Section 43(b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 (for short 'the Act'). Hence this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) THE allegation in the complaint, which is produced along with this Crl.R.P. as Annexure-I, is that the complainant is a resident of the locality in which the first accused/company is situating and functioning under the provisions of the above Act. THE product of the company is carbon black, which is generally used as raw materials for the manufacture of tyres, batteries etc. According to the allegation, the first accused/company, in violation of Sections 21 and 31A of the Act, established and operated Line III. According to the complainant, the Line III was established and operated without obtaining prior consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to for short as 'Board') and because of the absence of sufficient safety measures, there were emissions of carbon which adversely affected the health of the local people. Thus, the crux of the allegation is that since Line III was established and operated without obtaining prior consent and in violation of the direction issued by the Board, Sections 21 and 31 of the Act are attracted and thereby the accused,19 in numbers, have committed the offence punishable under Section 37 of the Act.

(3.) ON hearing the arguments of counsel for the revision petitioners and the first respondent, it appears to me that though the learned Magistrate has referred to several proceedings and documents issued by the Board as well as the District Collector and though the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the averments in the complaint as well as the documents produced on behalf of the complainant itself are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused that they have violated the orders and directions given by the Board on 20.7.2001, by which the accused were directed to stop the manufacturing operations and process of the first accused/company within 48 hours from the time of receipt of the order, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate miserably failed to consider certain relevant and material documents, especially in terms of the direction issued by this Court while issuing Annexure XIII order.