N.N. SHARMA OF OSWAL AGRO MILLS Vs. PUNJAB STATE BOARD FOR THE PREVENTION & CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N . N. Sharma, General Manager of M/s Oswal Agro Mills, Phagwara, the petitioner has moved this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 12.3.91 for offence under Section 43/44 read with section 47 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Phagwara.

(2.) THE prosecution of the petitioner and three others was launched by the respondent Board, on the allegations that vide Punjab Govt. Notification dated 27.3.80, published in the State Govt. Gazette dated 28-3-80. 30.6.80 was the specified date on or before which the applications for consent shall be made under sub-section (2) of section 25 read with section 26 of the Act. A publication with respect to this notification was also made. M/s Oswal Agro Mills. Phagwara (briefly the Company') is discharging its trade effluent in the shape of water mixed with chemicals. For discharging the effluent, the consent of the respondent-Board is necessary. The Company applied for getting the consent of the Board which was granted for a period of one year on 1.6.78 vide consent No. 295, subject to the following main conditions that the Company would put up the treatment plant so as to bring down the BOD content of the trade effluent within the tolerance limits. within a period of 6 months. The consent was subsequently renewed on 3.7.86 for one year. Conditions had been imposed that effluent discharged from the authorised outlets shall conform to IS 2490 (Part-1) 98, adopted by the Board for such discharge into public sewer. This consent of the Board expired on 30.7.87. The Company, however, did not comply with any of the conditions which were imposed on it. It also did not get the consent renewed After the date of expiry and the effluent was being discharged without the consent of the Board till today. After inspection, the Company was asked orally, as well as through notices, detailed in paragraph 8 of the complaint, for compliance with the Conditions but it has neither done so, nor has it applied. for renewal of the consent. As such, the Company and three of its officers, Managing Director, General Manager and Chief Chemist were criminally liable.

(3.) A bare reading of the order shows that the Magistrate had not only examined the record, but also heard the complainant and then formed his judicial opinion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons and having satisfied himself, he had ordered the issuing of summons. It would have been only unnecessary exercise to have added the de ails of facts given in complaint. Since it was a complaint by a public servant, recording of his statement was not necessary and the Magistrate had only to examine the record and form a judicial opinion that there were, sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. The order in question is, thus, held to be legally valid. Section 25 (4) of the Act reads as under "125 (4). The State Board way grant its consent. referred to in sub-section (1) subject to such conditions as it may impose, being