GUJARAT AMBUJA PROTEINS LIMITED Vs. DAHYABHAI KALUBHAI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have moved this Court inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17-8-1991 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kadi, in Criminal Case No. 579 of 1990, revoking the earlier order of granting exemption to the accused and issuing non-bailable warrants against them.

(2.) To state few relevant facts :- Respondent No. 1 Dahyabhai Kalubhai Solanki, Assistant Law Officer, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Ahmedabad, filed a complaint on 21-4-1990 before the learned J.M.F.C., Kadi, against M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Proteins Ltd. situated at Kadi, inter alia alleging that (i) the accused-factory had no facility - no plant to purify the polluted water; (ii) that the polluted water in turn was discharged in the open land situated nearby; and (iii) that though the application made by the complainant under Sec. 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 (for short "The Act") for the consent of the Board stood refused, still in defiances of the provisions of the Act, the complainant (sic.) and its partners had committed the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 24, 25, 43, 44 and 47 of the Act. On the basis of these allegations, the process came to be issued against the petitioner-accused. Thereafter the matter went on merrily adjourned from date to date on one ground or the other for about 15 times consuming 16 months, progressing not an inch further. This was like calling out names from the musterroll to mark presence or absence as of the students in class-room. From the Rojkam it also appears that the complainant had remained absent on many occasions. This also prima-facie once again speaks about on the one hand lethargy of the Court in expeditiously disposing of the criminal cases and that too under the most important Act like Pollution Act, and on the other hand unduly liberal attitude in enforcing the presence of the parties and recording the evidence. This also as well speaks about the complicity of the complainant and his learned P.P. in not keeping the witnesses present and get them examined. One should not forget that the cases under the Pollution Act are invariably and unpardonably required to be given top-most priority and should not be lightly adjourned till of course the case for the same is made out absolutely and the learned Magistrate passing speaking orders giving sufficient reasons for the same. Not to do so, is prima-facie nothing, but can be treated as misconduct on the part of the complainant and the Court as well in absence of just and proper explanation. As a matter of fact, it was the prime duty of the complainant to volunteer himself before the Court entering the witness-bax to get himself examined and it was equally foremost duty of the learned Magistrate to record the evidence of the complainant at the earliest best, because he being the public servant on the next appointed date, may, may not be present because he has to file number of such other cases in other Courts and as some other important work also and essentially so because this was a pollution case. In such cases, the learned Magistrate is required to follow the procedure as laid down in Secs. 244 and 245 of the Code.

(3.) According to the learned A.P.P., the petitioners have made an application at Ex. 4, on 15-4-1990 under Secs. 205 and 317 of the Code praying for exemption from appearing before the Court. This was heard and decided by the learned Magistrate on 26-11-1990, whereby the same came to be allowed and the petitioners were exempted till further directions, directing them to remain present before the Court as and when required. It is indeed strange and shocking that such a small application to be heard and decided took more than seven months. For other eight months case went in cold storage as thereafter it further appears that the learned Magistrate by an order dated 17-8-1991 cancelling the earlier order granting exemption, issued non-bailable warrants on the ground that the case has become pretty old and in absence of the accused the trial was not proceeding further giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application.