RATTAN AMOL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'BNSS') seeking quashing of Complaint No.31 of 2018 under Ss. 2, 28, 29, 32 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the 1975 Rules titled 'DFO vs. M/s Chadha Sugars and others' and the impugned summoning orders dtd. 16/11/2018 (Annexure P-2) and 15/2/2023(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, as well as all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that petitioner No.4 is a company that runs a sugar factory, a grain-based distillery and a molassesbased distillery in Village Afghana, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. In the year 2017-18, the said complex saw an increase in sugarcane crushing, which led to an increased production of sugar and bio-products such as molasses. The molasses produced was stored in open polyethylene covered molasses pits. However, due to a sudden increase in temperature caused by an unanticipated heat wave, the molasses self-ignited on 16/5/2018. Consequently, the molasses overflowed from the plant, into the Beas river via the Kanhuwan drain. Taking note of the same, complaint(supra) was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioner No.4 has complied with all the prescribed norms. The overflow of molasses into the Beas river occurred due to an unprecedented heat wave and not due to any negligence on part of the petitioners. In the complaint(supra), it is alleged that many fish had died due to discharge of some poisonous substances into the Beas river. However, petitioner No.4 has not been named as an accused therein. Further, learned counsel submits that according to analysis report dtd. 17/5/2018 (Annexure P-10) prepared by the Dean, College of Fisheries, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, neither any major contamination was detected in the fish, water or sediment samples nor was the fish mortality linked to any infection or disease. Furthermore, the complaint (supra) is based on the apparent changes in colour of the water body and the sudden death of many fish. There is nothing on the record that would attribute the occurrence to any act on part of the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners have been forced to appear before the learned trial Court for the past many years, in spite of the fact that pre-summoning evidence has not been produced. As such, it is clear that the petitioners have been summoned merely on the ipse dixit of the complainant, without application of judicial mind and indicating any reasons to justify the same. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Ramdev Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439