BAROTIWALA PAPER MILLS PVT.LTD. Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing the order dated 31 -3 -1987 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the proceedings pending in case No. 15/3 of 1984 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that a complaint under sections 33, 41, 42, 43 and 44 read with sections 25, 26, 27 and 30 of the Act was initiated against the petitioners by the H. P. State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. After the preliminary evidence was over, notices were issued to the petitioners to appear in the case. On 20 -4 -1985, the complaint was dismissed for non -prosecution in the absence of the complainant and the petitioners were discharged. On 22 -4 -1985, an application was moved on behalf of the Board for the Restoration/revival of the order dated 20 -4 -1985 by reviewing the same and in pursuance of this application, a notice was issued to the petitioners for 20 -4 -1985 and as the Presiding Officer happened to be away, the case was listed on 10 -5 -1985 for which date notices were again sent to the respondents. Although the order of dismissal of the complaint was not specifically set aside on the case file, however, the proceedings continued and the petitioners were represented by their Counsel on 9 -8 -1985, 9 -9 -1985, 17 -10 -1985, 16 -11 -1985, 31 -1 -1986, 12 -5 -1986, 2 -8 -1986, 16 -8 -1986, 6 -9 -1986, 27 -9 -1986, 16 -10 -1986, 3 -1 -1987, 21 -1 -1987, 12 -2 -1987, 31 -3 -1987, 21 -4 -1987, 30 -4 -1987. Ultimately when the case stood at the stage of charge, the present petition was moved by the petitioners and stay of further proceedings in the case was ordered on 20 -5 -1987.

(3.) Sh. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court could not proceed with the matter when once the complaint had been dismissed for non -prosecution as the order amounted to that of acquittal and that the complaint could not be restored or revived in the absence of any specific power vested in the trial Court to review the order dated 20 -4 -1985. The learned Counsel further urges that the trial Court wrongly assumed that there was an implied power of review or restoration and that the petitioners had consented not only to the same but also to the continuance of the proceedings from that stage onwards. In these circumstances, it is contended that the proceedings could not be continued and the result was that further proceedings in the matter were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed by this Court