PULGAON COTTON MILLS LIMITED PULGAON Vs. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ARMY AND NAVY BUILDING BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By this application the applicants have challenged the order dated 10-5-1994 passed by the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Pulgaon, framing the charges under sections 25 and 26 read with section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (for short the Act ), confirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, wardha, in Criminal revision application No. 75/1994 by the judgment and the order dated 7-9-1995.

(2.) APPLICANT No. 1 is a unit of the Maharashtra State textile Corporation, Bombay (for short the Corporation ), which is a Government of Maharashtra undertaking. Applicant no. 2 is the chairman of the said Corporation. Applicant No. 3 is the General Manager and applicant No. 4 is the Factory manager of applicant No. 1 Pulgaon Cotton Mills (for short the Mill ).

(3.) A private complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 maharashtra Pollution Control Board, (for short the board ), in the Court of the J. M. F. C. , Pulgaon, being criminal case No. 992/1990 against the applicants, alleging that the applicants failed to provide adequate arrangements for treatment of industrial effluents to satisfy the standards prescribed by the Board. The staff of the complainant collected samples from time to time to check the quality of effluent discharged by applicant No. 1. From the report of the analysis it was noticed that the applicants failed to achieve the standard prescribed by the Board and, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the applicant which was followed by the complaint filed in the Court. The applicants had filed the application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable for want of requisite sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was allowed by the Magistrate but the said order was reversed in criminal revision No. 45/1989 filed before the Sessions court by the complainant Board. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the complainant was led in the Court of the JMFC. The learned JMFC, after considering the complaint and the evidence of the complainant framed the charges under sections 25 and 26 read with section 44 of the Act. The order framing the charge was challenged by the applicants unsuccessfully before the Sessions Court in Criminal revision No. 75/1994. The said orders are challenged in the present application filed under section 482, Criminal procedure Code.