U.P. POLLUTION Vs. TULSIPUR SUGAR CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1993, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, by which the opposite parties no.1 to 7 have been acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that M/s. Tulsipur Sugar Company is a body corporate, which was discharging polluted water in the Rapti River without purifying it, by which the water was being polluted. The Company could not discharge the polluted water without consent under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The Company had moved an application for consent, but it was found that the Company was not having water treatment plant. Therefore, the consent was not granted and the decision of the Board was communicated to the Company on 08.09.1982. The Company continued to apply for the consent and again an application dated 15.07.1986 was moved which was also rejected by letter dated 29.11.1986. On 19.03.1987, the work place of the Company was inspected and it was found that the industry was in running condition and the polluted water was being discharged continuously in the drain. Inspection note was prepared on 20.03.1987. The complaint was filed against the Company as well as Director, General Manager and Secretary, who are responsible for day -to -day business of the Company.

(3.) AFTER recording the statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed and further evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. was recorded. B.D.Ratoori, P.W -1 has stated in his statement on oath that he had inspected the mill on 19.03.1987 after giving notice to the representatives of the Company. At the time of inspection, the factory was in running condition and it was not having any treatment plant. At the time of inspection, the polluted water was being discharged in Nakti drain. The inspection report has been proved as Exhibit Ka -1and notice as Exhibit Ka -2. P.W -2 Kaushal Kishore, Engineer (Pollution) has stated in his statement that the Company had applied for consent of the State Board, which was rejected in the year 1982 as well as on 29.11.1986 because the company was not having water treatment plant. P.W -3 C.B.Singh who had filed the complaint, had proved the complaint as well as other documents of the prosecution. The evidence in defence was adduced in which the defence witness has stated that in the year 1985 -86, and 87 Late Mata Deen Khetan was Director of the Company and he was looking after all the work of the Company who has died on 13.02.1991. On 26.02.1982, the Board of Director had passed a resolution. According to which, all functions were seen by Late Mata Deen Khetan. The copy of the resolution of the Board has been proved as Exhibit Kha -1. This witness has further stated that after the death of Mata Deen Khetan, all the functions of the industries are seen by General Manager. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Company was not granted consent to discharge the polluted water in the river. Therefore, it was proved that the Company was discharging the polluted water in the river. On the point of liability of the accused persons, learned court below came to the conclusion that the complainant has not filed any evidence that accused Nos.2 to 10 were responsible for day -to -day business of the Company. The prosecution has also not filed any oral or documentary evidence and none of the witness has named accused Nos.2 to 10 in their statements on oath. Therefore, the accused Nos.2 to 10 were not found guilty personally or jointly. Accordingly, accused persons Mohan Lal Dabriwala, Nirmal Kumar Dabriwala, Vimal Kumar Khetan, Santosh Kumar Dabriwala, B.D.Chomal and C.L.Sarogi were acquitted and the Deputy General Manager P.C.Kanodia was convicted.