LABHUBEN KESHAVLAL VADALIYA Vs. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint filed by respondent No.1-Gujarat Pollution Control Board, which is registered as Criminal Case No.273 of 1991 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal, Dist:Rajkot, for the alleged offence under Sections 24 and 25 read with Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short). The present petitioners were partners of the Firm namely "M/s.Chhaya Dyes and Chemicals".

(2.) IT appears from bare reading of the impugned complaint that the officers of Gujarat Pollution Control Board visited the factory premises of the said Firm on 16.11.1990 and accordingly, inspection report came to be prepared as provided under Section 23 of the Act, wherein it was found that the effluent is being discharged without obtaining any consent and a sample came to be collected as can be culled out from the said inspection report. On basis of the said report, the Competent Authority of respondent No.1-Board got permission to file the present complaint on 08.02.1991 and accordingly, the impugned complaint came to be filed against the Firm being original accused no.1 and others-accused nos.2 to 8 being partners of the said Firm.

(3.) IT further appears that the discharge application came to be preferred by the present petitioners being original accused nos.6, 7 and 4 respectively. It was, inter alia, contended in the said application that as far as petitioner nos.1 and 3 are concerned, they have retired from accused No.1-Firm w.e.f 08.04.1987. It was further contended that when the inspection was carried out on 16.11.1990, petitioner nos.1 and 3 were not even partners of the said Firm, and therefore, petitioner nos.1 and 3 cannot be held liable for the alleged offence. Similarly, petitioner no.2 i.e. original accused no.7 filed a discharge application on the ground that petitioner no.2 stays in U.S.A. and is only a sleeping parter and is not involved in day-to-day affairs and management of the said Firm.