MORENA MANDAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD Vs. MADHYA PRADESH BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused persons challenging revisional order dated 1 -10 -1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena setting aside Magistrate's order rejecting the complaint against accused persons and also remanding the case to the Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with law.

(2.) A complaint was filed in the name of M. P. Pradushan Nivaran Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the State Board) signed by its Member -Secretary Shri R. K. Khare in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh on 7 -8 -1985 against two accused persons named 'The Morena Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Ltd.' and General Manager of the said factory. These are the petitioners in this revision petition. The allegation made was that the accused persons were running a sugar factory and discharging effluents in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention and Control on Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) and thereby were committing offence under Section 44 of the Act. The learned Magistrate by order dated 12 -6 -1987 held that the General Manager, who was being prosecuted in the criminal case before him, was not the General Manager during the relevant year 1983 -84 but came to occupy that post only subsequently from the year 1986. On that ground the complaint was rejected and both the accused were released. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 1 -10 -1988 held that one of the accused was the factory itself against which no such ground was available. Even with regard to the other accused, namely, the General Manager, the offence alleged in the complaint was a continuing offence and hence it could not matter if the General Manager being proceeded against was not the General Manager at any particular point of time. So holding, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the Magistrate's order rejecting the complainant and remanded the case for further proceedings against the accused persons in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the accused persons have not come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) IT will be proper to notice at the outset the language of Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act, so far as material for our purpose, reads thus :