STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHUKAR SHIVRAM REGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Acquittal of one and the same accused person in three different prosecution launched against him by the Inspector of Steam Boilers and Smoke Nuisances, Maharashtra State, under section 9A (1) (b) ot the Bombay Smoke Nuisances Act. 1912 has resulted in these three appeals agairst the said acquittals by the State. All the aforesaid three prosecutions were in respect of three furnaces owned by the accused person and situated in an industrial area at Andheri In Greater Bombay.

(2.) The accused was carrying on the said work and business in about the year 1948 at Dadar in Gteater Bombay. While he was so carrying on his said business at Dadar, an Inspector of the concerned department appointed under the Bombay Smoke Nuisances Act visited the place of works of accused on 7th May, 1948 and inspected the same. After the said inspection the department wrote letter dated 14th May, 1948 to the accused informing him that "the two pii bhutties 10" diameter and also the 3rd pit bhuttie you propose to install are exempted from the provisions of the Bombay Smoke Nuisance Act. provided you continue to use hard coke and provided that no smoke nuisance is caused " The said letter is placed on the record of these proceedings at Ex 4. In about the year 1950, the accused shifted his said works of metal casting to an industrial area at Andheri and it is at the very same place that the said works of the accused are presently situated

(3.) Sometime in the year 1973. Inspector appointed under the aforesaid Act seems to have visited the said works at Andheri One of such inspertions took place on 10th April. 1973. The purpose of the inspection was to investigate whether there was any smoke nuisance from the furnaces. After the said inspection, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Steam Boilers and Smoke Nuisances. Maharashtra State wrote letter dated 16th May, 1973 (Ex 1 on the record) to the accused in his capacity as the proprietor of the works in Question informing the accused that "no smoke was noticed." In the said letter the accused was further informed as follows :