MEGH SHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected petitions under Section 482, CrPC, arising out of the same criminal proceedings. The Misc. Case no. 8130 of 1982 has been filed by some Directors and the Secretary of Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd., Shikohabad. This application has been brought with prayer that further proceedings in complaint case no. 995 of 1981, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, be quashed. It would appear that the complaint has been filed by the Secretary of the U. P. Water Pollution Prevention and Control Board, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow, against the six applicants in Misc. case no. 8130 of 1982, and two others, namely, the Company M/s. Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd. and Sri R.C. Misra, the Manager of the Company concerned under Sections 42 (1) and 44 of the aforesaid Act, namely. Act no. 6 of 1974 (hereinafter mentioned as Act 6 of 1974). The facts leading to the present proceedings may be briefly laid down.

(2.) M/s. Rajesh Paper Mills started a Paper Mill at Shikohabad. It obtained sanction from the Witter Pollution Prevention and Control Board. That sanction is annexed as Annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit. It is dated 20-12-1980 and in response to letter dated 15-8-80 of Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd. seeking sanction, giving reference to the contents of the application of the Paper Mills it is mentioned that the Mill informed that (1) the factory is likely to be commissioned by April 1981 (2) the entire work of completion and commissioning of effluent treatment plant will be completed by March 1981 and (3) the undertaking that the production in the Paper Mill will be started only after completion and commissioning of the complete effluent treatment plant. Thereafter information and compliance is sought by the Board and it is then stated that subject to such compliance of the conditions annexed to the enclosed form, consent is given to discharge treated effluents from the date of commissioning of complete effluent treatment plant. It was also mentioned that if the Mill starts production without making the aforesaid arrangements and compliance of the conditiors of consent, it will amount to breach of the provisions of the Act, namely, Act 6 of 1974 punishable under Section 44 of the Act. There will be also liability under Section 43 of the Act. The provisions were quoted. Thereafter it was again stressed that suitable arrangement for treatment of trade effluent etc. be made and in case treatment plant is not started, legal actions will be taken. It would appear from the annexure to the supplementary affidavit in Misc. case No. 3755 of 1982 that Sri S. K. Tikmani, one of the Director applicants, furnished certain informations in compliance to the aforesaid directions of the Board to the effect that the Factory is likely to commence normal production by April 1981 and the work of the installation of the treatment plant has already been started and will be completed by March 1981 and a schedule of programme for construction of treatment plant was also given. The Assistant Engineer of the Water Pollution Prevention and Control board wrote to the company that the information is incomplete and vague, and again stressed that the work should be completed by the schedule time:. There are various correspondence exchanged in between and it will be needless to refer to all of them and I may now pass on to the material averments made in the complaint.

(3.) IT is noteworthy that considering the importance of the matter of pollution, which may affect the health of public at large, a provision has been made that such appellate authority shall consists of not a single person, but consist of three persons. Section 29 of the Act provides for revision by State Government suo moto as well. IT is noteworthy that, admittedly, the Company or the petitioners did not prefer any appeal under section 28 of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant urged in this connection that sections 25 and 26 are to be read with Section 2 (e) of the Act defining 'pollution' and also with section 24 making prohibition for use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matters. IT is further urged that there is a standard concerning pollution and unless it is shown that the dischrge from the outlet, i.e., the effluent, is polluted within the meaning of the Act, no offence will be made out. IT is, further urged that in this background the complaint cannot be taken to disclose a prima facie case.