L R WADHAWANI Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, dated 6.4.1985, whereby, the said Court dismissed the application moved by the parties to the complaint, for compounding the offence, and, for withdrawal of the complaint.

(2.) In brief the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are, that the Haryana State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, for prosecution of the accused petitioner under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). While the complainant was in final stages, application for compounding the offence, and, for withdrawal of the complaint was moved jointly by the complainant-Board as well as by the accused party. It was mentioned in the said application that the accused had closed the manufacturing process of Ink, which was causing pollution. The accused had agreed that whenever they would start the manufacturing of ink, they would first install the water treatment plant, and they would also require the consent of the Board under the Act. It was further mentioned in the said application that it would be in the interest of both the parties, and, the general public at large that the complaint was withdrawn. It was also mentioned that since the Board had achieved the aim of stopping pollution of water, the matter had been compromised. Prayer in the application was made for permission to withdraw the complaint, and the same be dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) Vide the impugned order, learned lower Court held that no provision had been made for composition of offence under the Act by the legislature. The trial Court further held that the there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for compounding the offence in which the punishment provided was seven years and, the case would be triable as a warrant case. Consequently the application for compounding the offence by the complainant and the accused, and, for withdrawal of the complaint by the Board, was dismissed. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the accused has filed this revision petition.