Recently, the Rajasthan High Court highlighted the significance of statutory compliance in environmental prosecutions, observing that criminal proceedings under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 cannot be sustained unless the complaint is instituted by a duly authorized person. The Court was dealing with a challenge arising from pollution-related proceedings where the very competence of the complainant to initiate prosecution was questioned.
The Petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. An order taking cognizance of the alleged offences had earlier been passed by the Magistrate. Subsequently, the revisional court set aside the cognizance order but remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the remand order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court. The Petitioner asserted that the complaint had been filed without any valid authorization from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board as required under the Act.
It was contended that Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 mandates that only a person duly authorized by the Pollution Control Board can institute prosecution. The Petitioner argued that no authorization letter empowering the complainant to file the criminal complaint existed prior to the institution of proceedings. Consequently, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences.
Considering the matter, the High Court observed that the issue regarding the competence and authorization of the complainant goes to the root of the proceedings and must be examined before any further action is taken. The Court directed the Magistrate to first determine whether any valid authorization had been issued by the Pollution Control Board or by a competent officer empowered under the Act.
The Court observed that “The learned Magistrate shall, before proceeding further in the matter, first record a specific finding regarding the competence and lawful authorization of the complainant to institute the complaint.”
The Court further held that “It is made clear that, in absence of a valid and legally sustainable authorization in favour of the complainant at the time of institution of the complaint, the bar contained under Section 49 of the Act would operate, rendering the complaint itself non-maintainable and denuding the criminal court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences.”
Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the Magistrate to specifically examine whether a valid authorization in favour of the complainant existed prior to the filing of the complaint and whether such authorization satisfied the statutory requirements of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Court also directed that no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners until a final order is passed on the complaint.
Case Title: Pramod Jain @ Pramod Kumar v. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2299/2021
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chhangani
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Pareek, Public Prosecutor
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :