M.P. Pollution Control Board Thr. ... vs Hotel Jahaj Mahal Pvt. Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4947 MP

        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                            MCRC-36902-2020
 (M.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THR. AK. BISEN Vs HOTEL JAHAJ MAHAL PVT. LTD. AND
                                    OTHERS)




Indore, Dated : 02-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

               Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
Petitioner .
               Shri   Omprakash      Solanki,   learned     counsel    for   the
Respondent nos 1 and-2.

The applicant has preferred this application under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23/10/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar, District-Dhar (M.P) in RCT no. 2096/2014, whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charges/offence punishable under sections 25 and 26 of the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent no. 1/accused is running a hotel in the name of Jahaj Mahal at the historical heritage Mandav, District - Dhar. Respondent no.2 is the Director of respondent no.1 / hotel and he is responsible for all affairs and activities of respondent no.1 which is situated at Mandav, where facilitate of lodging and boarding, which are available with 24 double bed rooms for accommodation and restaurant including bar. It is the duty of the respondent/s to obtain permission from the applicant for prevention of water pollution, but the respondent/s did not obtain permission/consent from the applicant/board. They are running hotel, without following the provisions of the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ( for brevity " the Act, 1974" ). The respondents found in contravention of the Act, 1974.

3. Applicant/Board submitted a complaint against the respondent/s before the JMFC, which has been registered as RCT no. 2096/2014, and learned Court below dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant/Board and vide judgment dated 23/11/2019, acquitted the respondent/s from the aforementioned charges. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the applicant/Board has preferred present application before this Court for grant of leave to appeal

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/Bard has submitted that learned Court below has erred in ignoring the spot verification dated 14/12/2012, wherein it is clearly mentioned that no Storage Treatment Plant ( STP) was installed in the hotel, which is an offence punishable under sections 44 and 47 of the Act, 1974. Learned Court below also ignored the witnesses and testimony of the Government Officer, which is again bad in law. National Green Tribunal has also observed in another case about the risk of the water pollution, but learned Court below overlooked the observations of the National Green Tribunal, which is bad in law. The applicant/Board has issued a show-cause notice to the respondent/s, which has not been complied with by the non-applicants and they have not replied to the show-cause notice. This fact also reflects intention and negligence of the non-applicants/ respondents, hence learned counsel prays that present application for leave to appeal be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/s opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

7. Perused the statement of Ashok Kumar Bisen, Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Dhar (PW-1) and other documentary evidence available on record coupled with the fact that the respondent/s has denied that he has not violated the rules regarding pollution.

8. Shri Ashok Kumar Bisent (PW-1) stated in para-1 of his deposition that a complaint was received against respondent nos. 1 regarding running a hotel without obtaining permission and show-

cause notice (Ex-1) was issued against the Manager of the hotel. He inspected the hotel and prepared inspection report Ex.-2. He further stated that he has issued notice Ex.-3 and Ex-4 against the respondents, but in cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that his department has issued permission for construction of Jahaj Mahal Hotel.

9. Alok Singhai (PW-2) also admitted in his cross-examination that he never inspected the accused' hotel. He fairly admitted that the complainant did not produce any relevant documents regarding management authority of the hotel. The complainant did not produce any independent witness regarding violation made by the accused persons. They did not produce any relevant photographs for such violation.

10. Considering the statement of Ashok Kumar Bisent (PW-1) and Alok Singhai (PW-2) and the finding given by learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the applicant/Board has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampat Babso Kale, Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 648 held that presumption of innocence attached to every accused person gets strengthened on acquittal of accused by the Trial Court., High Court should not lightly interfere with decision of trial Court.

12. In view of the aforesaid, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23/10/2019 passed by JMFC, Dhar in RCT no. 2096/2014.

13. With the aforesaid observation, present application filed under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant/Board is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2021.09.04 13:15:39 +05'30'