AGARWAL BREWERIES Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the memo of revision and during the course of arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel (i) that the order is final in its nature because there is no conditional order under section 133 (2) of the Cr. P.C. (ii) that the closure of the factory has been directed without giving the petitioner proper opportunity to explain and (iii) that in view of coming into force of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which provides for the machinery of examination, control and prosecution on failure 'of the compliance of the provisions of law and the directions of the Pollution Control Board constituted under the Act; the S.D.M. could not have exercised powers under section 133 of Cr. P.C. They have also not been given some time to prevent the flow of alleged contaminated effluent.

(2.) HELD : Learned counsel for State has objected as to the maintainability of the revision under the interim order.

(3.) NO doubt sub -section (2) of Section 397 of Cr. P.C. puts a bar against the exercise of revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order. But on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has been directed to close the factory (Brewery) with immediate effect. This order, therefore, has become final to that extent.