NCJ RAJAN Vs. P. K. KUMUDINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 to 5 in a prosecution under the provisions of 'The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974'. It is alleged that they are directors of a company. The crux of the allegation is that the said company had committed offence of water pollution punishable under the Act in the locality in which it is working. The petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under S.482 CrPC.

(2.) What are the reasons The learned counsel for the petitioner has identified five specific reasons on the basis of which he claims quashing of proceedings. First of all, it is contended that no notice under S.49 of the Act has been issued to the Pollution Control Board by the first respondent / complainant before launching this prosecution. After discussions at the bar, this point is not seriously pressed. It is evident that this contention is not available to the petitioners in as much as there is specific averment in the complaint and Ext. P1 document marked in the course of the sworn statement of complainant to show that notice under S.49 of the Act had been issued to the Pollution Control Board before the complainant embarked on this prosecution.

(3.) The second contention raised is that the complaint is not maintainable in as much crucial averments to implicate the petitioners are not there in the complaint. S.47(1) reads as follows: