HARYANA STATE BOARD FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION Vs. SANJIVAN RESEARCH LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I dispose of five Criminal revisions No. 1147 to 1150 (moved by Haryana State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) and 1402 (moved by M/s Instruments and Chemicals (P) Ltd.), all of 1998, but the object of filing all the five petitions is the same, which seek the quashment of the orders dated 4.9.1998, passed in Crl. Revisions 1147 to 1150 of 1998 and order dated 30.9.1998, passed in Crl. Rev. 1402 of 1998.

(2.) HARYANA State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Chandigarh, filed an application for the withdrawal of the prosecution against the industrial units and the said application was dismissed by the learned Special Environment Court, Hisar, who even went to the extent of passing certain remarks, which can be described in the following manner :-

(3.) REPEATEDLY , it has been stated by the Supreme Court and also by the High Courts that the Presiding Officer of a judicial court should act like a cucumber. When anger enters in the heart of a judicial officer, justice will flee through the door. So far as the object of the learned Magistrate in protecting the environment of this country is concerned, there are no two opinions that the object is laudable. A judicial officer may be morally convinced that the particular act on the part of an individual or institution may not be right, but law courts are governed by the rule and procedure. If the prosecutor making the application for the withdrawal of the prosecution has applied its mind and has ultimately come to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the prosecution is in the larger interest of the parties, the law courts should not impede and become a stumbling block. It is none of the business of the law courts to pass severe strictures, much less at the hands of the Magistrate. A Presiding Officer should restrain himself while passing such severe strictures. Something which can be done in a polite manner should be done in that very manner and there was hardly any necessity on the part of the learned Magistrate to condemn the action on the part of the Board in the severest language, which has been used in declining the application. No mala fide is discernible on the part of the Board when it wanted to withdraw the prosecution. The Board might have compounded the offence, perhaps with an understanding on behalf of the units that they will take necessary steps for protecting the environment of the industry. If the Board is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken and after imposing fine, etc., it has reached to a compromise, the law courts rather should try to protect the interests of both the units as well as the Board itself.