HIMATLAL MULJIBHAI TALATI Vs. GUJARAT POLLUTIN CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard ld. Counsel Mr. Kunal Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for the petitioner (original accused no.4), ld. counsel Mr. Haresh Trivedi for respondent No.1 (original complainant) and ld. APP Mr. Vipul Pancholi for respondent no.2 State. Ld. counsel Mr.Trivedi has tendered affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.1 which is taken on record.

(2.) By means of filing this petition under S.482 of CrPC, the petitioner- original accused no.4 has prayed that a criminal complaint being registered as Cr.Case No. 712/1989 on 23.2.1989 pending in the court of ld. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gandevi and process issued in the said proceedings be quashed and set aside. According to the petitioner, complaint is filed by the Environmental Engineer under Section 41(2) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It has been specifically contended by the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, he was the Professional Director of Gujarat Distilleries (India) Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"). The petitioner is a practising advocate and Chartered Accountant having his office at 3rd Floor, Ambica Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. On the date of petition, he was aged about 74 years.

(3.) Ld. counsel Mr. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in the complaint (Annex.A), profession of the present petitioner is wrongly shown as "Vepar" (business). Basically, the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and he was a Professional Director of the Company. He was not concerned with the day to day affairs and administration of the company and, therefore, he could not have been prosecuted by the complainant. Ld.Counsel Mr.Nanavati has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1678/90 and Group (Coram: N.J.Pandya,J) dated 11.9.1997. This Court, while dealing with the case of the accused who was a practising advocate and was also shown as Accused No.10 in the very same complaint in which the present petitioner is shown as accused No.4, had initiated aforesaid proceedings under S.482 of CrPC praying to quash and set aside the criminal complaint and process issued on the basis of the said complaint qua him. After considering all relevant aspects, aforesaid application was allowed. It is pointed out by ld. counsel Mr. Nanavati that criminal case against the petitioner of said application and process issued based on the complaint were quashed and set aside. Copy of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case is also placed on record.