PANKAJ N.VAIDHYA Vs. PETROCHEM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJENDRA M. SAREEN 1. The present appeal, under sec. 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 4/5/2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, in Criminal Case No. 2058 of 1996, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the respondent No. 1 is the proprietary firm and respondents No.2 is the proprietor of the said firm. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 is responsible and liable for day to day affairs of the company and he is discharging the polluted water without any process or treatment in open land as well as in the river. It is alleged that respondents are discharging large quantity of polluted water in the open land and in the river and they have not taken any kind of permission for that. It is alleged that on 22/3/1996 the officers of the Board have visited the factory premises for inspection and took the sample of effluent water which was sent for analysis. It is alleged that the Public Analyst submitted the Report and as per the said Report it was found that the accused have committed the breach of Ss. 24 , 25 , 43 . 44 and 47 of the Prevention of Water Pollution Control Act ., and therefore, after obtaining sanction complaint has been filed against the respondents - accused. Thereafter, the trial was conducted against the respondents - accused. The trial Court examined the witnesses and also considered the documentary evidence led before it and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence has acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them.

(3.) It was contended by learned Advocate Mr. Deepak G. Aloria for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also contended that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has contended that the Board Officers have followed the rules prescribed by law and the Officer of the Board have also followed the procedure of taking the sample. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.