PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD Vs. SABU THOZHUPPADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision is by the accused, three in number, accused 1 , 5 and 6, as against whom alone, cognizance taken of the offence imputed on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent numbered as CC No. 105 of 2002 is proceeded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry. Challenge is against the order dated 28/05/2011 by the Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses under S.244(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), that a prima facie case has been made out against the aforesaid accused for their trial. Propriety, legality, and correctness of that order is assailed by the accused in this revision.

(2.) First respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), is a practising advocate, who claims to be a social activist holding the post of the Chairman of an organisation named 'Im'_' aen - \o - I - cW hncp - ' - ] - cn - 'nXn kwc - 'W kanXn' (Anti Carbon Pollution - Environmental Protection Council) at Karimugal, which is stated to be a congregation of 18 social and religious organisations functioning in and around Karimugal engaged in activities resisting and protecting the air and water pollution alleged to be caused in the said area by the operation and functioning of the factory of the 1st accused company. He filed a complaint against the aforesaid company, its managing director and also senior officers, all the accused together 19 in number, before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Kolencherry to proceed against them for violations under S.21 and S.31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that they have caused pollution by the operation of the factory in violation or without taking such orders as are necessary under law for operation of the company from the Pollution Control Board [for short 'the Board'], causing serious health hazards to the inhabitants in the locality infringing their right to life enshrined under the Constitution. First accused company had only two lines of production as Line No. I and II, but they proceeded with unauthorised expansion of its activity without the previous sanction of the Board, as covered under S.21 of the Act, put into operation a third line for production, and commissioned the additional reactors thereto, was the case of the complainant. The orders issued by the Pollution Control Board to close down the industry within 48 hours, for violation of the provisions of the Act, according to the complainant, were not complied with. The accused by the aforesaid acts have committed the offence under S.37 of the Act was the case of the complainant.

(3.) The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant had ordered process to the accused, all of them (19 in number). The accused challenged that order before this Court filing two separate Crl.MCs. accused 1, 13 and 14 as one set, Crl. MC No. 3608/04, and accused 4 to 13 and 15 to 19 as another set, Crl. MC No. 4462/04, for quashing the proceedings against them. Those two Crl. MCs. after being heard together were disposed by Annexure 13 order dated 1st March, 2004. Proceedings in the complaint against the accused other than the present revision petitioners (A1, A5 & A6) were quashed by this Court. Insofar as the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners (A1, A5 & A6) some directions were also issued under the aforesaid order. It may be appropriate to refer to the directions made in the aforesaid common order disposing the Crl. MCs., as one among the directions therein has given rise to a number of proceedings from the complainant, at different stages, including the present one as against the order passed by the Magistrate under consideration. The directions under Annexure 13 are as follows: