LAXMIKANT BHAGUBHAI Vs. D.K. SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') for quashing a complaint being Criminal Case No. 1099/1994 filed against them, as well as against other accused persons, by respondent No. 1 herein, before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with Section 47 of the said Act. The petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Managing Directors while the petitioners Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the Directors of the Company.

(2.) THE first respondent has filed the aforesaid complaint, as an Assistant Law Officer of Gujarat Pollution Control Board at Gandhinagar before the above Court, stating that the accused in the said criminal case are running industry in the name and style of Cellulose Products of India Ltd. situated at Ahmedabad. It is alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid Unit has been discharging 3 lakh litres of trade effluent everyday. It is further alleged in the complaint that the Board had imposed certain conditions, in order to enable Cellulose Products of India Ltd. to qualify for the consent of the Board under the said Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that the said industry was discharging waste water into the nearby pond, from where water was being used for irrigation purpose. It is also alleged in the complaint that sample of the said effluent was collected and was duly tested; that on examination it was noticed that there was a violation of the provisions made in Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the said Act, resulting in commission of offence punishable under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the said Act. It is also alleged in the complaint that the said violation has been committed by the accused persons named in the complaint and therefore, the accused persons may be dealt with in accordance with law.

(3.) ON receipt of the petition. Rule was issued and in response to the service of notice of Rule, Mr. N.D. Gohil learned Advocate appears for respondent No. 1, whereas Mr. V.M. Pancholi learned APP appears on behalf of the State. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the papers.