MAHMUD ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three significant issues which have come to the fore in this reference to the Full Bench deserve a somewhat precise formulation in the following terms :-

(2.) The facts giving rise to the issues aforesaid are not in serious dispute and lie in a narrow compass. The Bihar State Water Pollution Control and Prevention Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') had instituted a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, on the 9th May, 1981, against M/s. M. A. Paper and Card Board Factory (Pvt.) Limited, Sasamusa, District Gopalganj, for offences punishable under Ss.41 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the contravention of Ss.20(3), 24, 25 and 26 thereof. The primal charge against the accused company was that it was discharging vast masses of polluted water and other trade effluents from its paper factory in river "Daha" without the consent of the Board and was causing great and grave environmental problems to the society at large and to the inhabitants of the surrounding environment. By order dt. 15th May, 1981, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 41 and 44 of the Act and transferred the case for trial to Shri B. K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj. During the course of the trial, P.W. 2, Anirudh Narain Jamuar, on 13th Feb., 1982 and later on the 30th July, 1982 deposed in Court that petitioner Mohmud Ali was the Managing Director in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business both at the time of commission of the offence and at the time of his deposition. On the firm basis of the said categoric statement, the prosecution filed a petition (Annexure-'4') that Mohmud Ali, the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the Factory, was equally responsible and liable under S.47 of the Act for the offence and, therefore, prayed for his summoning to stand trial therefor. By the impugned order dated the 8th of July, 1983, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the present petition for quashing the issue of process against the petitioner has been preferred. The primal ground on which it is rested is that the complaint had not expressly incorporated within it, the words that the petitioner was in charge and/or responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. The further grievance made out is that neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of P.W.2, specific allegation has been levelled that the offence was committed either with the connivance or consent of the petitioner or was attributable to any neglect on his part.

(3.) This case orginally came up for admission before my learned Brother S. Shamsul Hasan, J. and at that very stage he expressed his disagreement with the decision in Cr. Misc. No. 7555 of 1982 decided on 6th April, 19/83 and referred the matter to a Division Bench. Before the Division Bench primary reliance on behalf of the petitioner was placed on 1971 BLJR 1005 (supra) and a number of other single and Division Bench Judgments of this Court - both prior and subsequent thereto - taking a similar view. Doubting the correctness thereof in view of the recent decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision.