U P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. KRISHNA MURARI; KRISHNA TIMBER INDUSTRIES MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition un der Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 3-4-1986 passed by the C. J. M. , Mathura and also the order dated 15-10-1986 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura by which the Revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) KRISHNA Murari Sharma and Ravindra Nath Chaturvedi respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Criminal Complaint against the applicants for their prosecution under Sections 268. 278 and 290, IPC. Learned Magistrate after recording statement of KRISHNA Murari Sharma under Section 200, Cr PC passed the impugned order dated 3-4-1986 summoning the applicants to face trial.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant under Section 200. Cr PC would show that the main person responsible for flowing col oured and dirty water are the owners of Saree Printing Units. The polluted water flows out of ihe Saree Printing Units and gets accumulated in a low lying area which had been ear-marked for the pur pose of a park. The accused-applicants arc officers and employees of the U. P. Indus trial Development Corporation Ltd. and there is no allegation that they are in any manner responsible for discharging col oured and polluted water. There is only a general allegation that the Officers of the Corporation did not discharge their duty for making proper arrangements of drain age while developing the industrial site. The complaint has been filed under Sec tions 268, 278 and 290, IPC, Section 268, IPC provides that a person is guilty of a public nuisance who docs any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury to the public. Section 278, IPC provides that whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere so as to make it noxious to the health of the persons in the neighbourhood are liable to be punished. Section 290, IPC makes a general provi sion to the effect that whoever commits a public nuisance is liable to be punished. The allegations in the complaint do not show that any such specific act was done by the applicants which may make them liable under the aforesaid provisions of the Penal Code. There may be some adminis trative lapse on their part but that by itself cannot amount to a criminal offence. The real offenders appear to be the owners of Saree Printing Units who are discharging coloured and dirty water.