Raj. Board Of Prevention And ... vs M/S Parveen Dying Works And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5646 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1/1990

Raj. Board Of Prevention And Control of Pollution, J-2/35, Mahaveer Marg 'C' Scheme, Jaipur

----Appellant Versus

1. M/s Parveen Dying Works, Navalkha Road, Pali

2. M/s Faruk Dyeing Company, Navalkha Road, Pali

3. Abbasali, owner M/s. Parveen Dyeing Works and M/s. Faruk Company.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 723/2001 Rajasthan State Pollution Control

----Appellant Versus M/s Bothra Textiles Mills And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 142/2002 Rajasthan State Pollutioncontrol

----Appellant Versus M/s Jayanti Lal Premraj And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 226/2004 The Rajasthan Board For Prevfention Andcon

----Appellant Versus M/s Madhuban Chemicals And Fertilizers And O

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 352/2004 The Raj. State.board For Preve.and Con.ofw

----Appellant Versus

(2 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

M/s Milap Textiles Mills And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 811/2004 The Raj. State. Board For Prev. And Con

----Appellant Versus M/s Mahabaleshwar Dyeing Company And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 940/2004 The Raja. State Board For Pre.and Con.of

----Appellant Versus M/s Mahasaraswati Dyeing Mills And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1198/2004 The Raj. State Board For Pre.and Con.of

----Appellant Versus M/s Sharif Dyeing Work And Anr

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yash Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar PP Mr. B.S. Charan

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

19/04/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

(3 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

2. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the

impugned judgments dated 09.08.1989, 19.10.2000, 19.08.2002

and 03.12.2002, whereby the learned courts below have acquitted

the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them.

3. Since all the present appeals involve a common issue,

therefore, for the sake of brevity, the present adjudication is being

made while treating S.B. Criminal Appeal No.01/1990, as a lead

case.

4. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr.Yash Parihar appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board

submits that the appellant is a body corporate and having its

perpetual succession under the law. As per learned Senior

Counsel, since the complaint has been filed by the Board,

therefore, there was no requirement of any prior sanction for

doing so.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board further

submits that the criminal complaint was filed for the violation of

the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1974'), alleging

therein the accused-respondents were discharging trade-effluent

into the Bandi River without the prior consent of the appellant-

Board, thus constituting the offence under the Act of 1974.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board also submits

that the accused-respondents were also discharging poisonous

noxious and polluting substance in excess of the standards laid

down by the appellant-Board, which also constituted an offence

under the provisions of the Act of 1974.

(4 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board further

submits that the complaint was filed through an authorized

person, samples in question were taken by the authorized person,

samples were sent for necessary analysis in a sealed condition and

the same were analyzed and examined by the authorized and

competent analyst, and thus, the same was done strictly in

accordance with law; hence, it cannot be said that any deviation

from the provisions of any law has been made.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board also submits

that the appellant-Board in its meeting held in the year 1979,

being competent authority, resolved to launch criminal prosecution

against the accused-respondents, in consequence of continued

and deliberate violations of the provisions of law by them.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board further

submits that the learned courts below have misinterpreted the

provisions of law, while passing the impugned order, as the

question of prior sanction is irrelevant when the complaint had

been filed by the Board itself, through its authorized

representative in his official capacity. As per learned Senior

Counsel, the question of sanction arises only when a complaint of

like nature is to be filed by a person other than the Board for the

violations of the provisions of law, which is not so in the present

case.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board also submits

that the learned courts below also erred in law while drawing a

conclusion that while resolving to launch the criminal prosecution

against the accused-respondents (various industries), the

appellant-Board has not made due application of mind; whereas,

(5 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

as per learned Senior Counsel, the appellant-Board in its

aforementioned meeting has made due application of mind and

made due deliberations, and only upon finding a prima facie case

of violations of the provisions of law on the part of the accused-

respondents to be made out, the criminal prosecution in question

has been initiated against the accused-respondents; such a

conscious decision taken by the appellant-Board ought not be

interfered with by the learned courts below, particularly, in light of

the illegal activities of the accused-respondents and the fact that

while initiating the prosecution, strict adherence to the provisions

of law has been made.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board harped upon

the fact that the learned courts below fell into error, while holding

that the appointment of the Board Analyst, pursuant to the

Notification dated 26.04.1979, was invalid. As per learned Senior

Counsel, the prescriptions of the aforementioned notification were

directory in nature, which is amply clear from a conjoint reading of

the relevant provisions of the Act of 1974, more particularly, when

such appointment did not prejudice the rights and interest of the

accused persons.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Board thus submits

that in the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, the learned courts

below were not justified in acquitting the accused-respondents of

the serious charges levelled against them, and thus, the impugned

judgments deserve to be interfered with by this Court.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,

while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of

the appellant-Board submits that it is clear from the record that

(6 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

the appellant-Board has launched the criminal prosecution against

various industries, including the accused-respondents, without

prior sanction as per law. Learned counsel further submits that

before approving the decision for prosecuting the various

industries, the appellant-Board, under the law, was required to

obtain separate sanction for each prosecution, which has not been

done so in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that

even the decision of initiating the criminal prosecution against the

respondents suffers from due application of mind, and thus, the

same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the

record also clearly reveals absence of due application of mind by

the appellant-Board before initiating the prosecution against the

respondents, as it is required under law that before approving

such action, the criminal action of each of the industry is required

to be duly considered and examined; thus, on that count also, the

non-application of mind on the part of the appellant-Board is

discernible on the face of the record.

15. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned courts below

have duly considered and appreciated all the material placed on

record before it, while also considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case; hence, the well reasoned conclusion of

acquittal of the respondents, as drawn by the learned courts below

in the impugned judgments cannot be faulted with on any count.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

17. This Court finds that while collecting the samples in question,

the requisite specimen impression was not taken; the evidence on

(7 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

record does not prove that the samples reached the Analyst in a

condition, in which the same were taken and thus, it could not be

proved that no tampering of the samples was done. Thus, the

deficiencies, as above, cast a doubt upon the case of the

prosecution; hence, the learned courts below were justified in

passing the impugned judgments.

18. This Court also finds that the learned courts below were right

in passing the impugned judgments of acquittal, as the

prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable

doubts and thus, no document as produced by the prosecution

could be said to be admissible in evidence.

19. As regards the approval of the prosecution sanction, this

Court finds that before doing so, the appellant-Board has not

made due application of mind, as it is apparent on the face of the

record that while approving the prosecution sanction, it was the

legal obligation of the appellant-Board to consider and keep in

mind the criminal action on the part of each of the industries;

whereas the record reveals that as many as 51 industries were

made to face the prosecution, merely in a cyclostyled manner,

which clearly caste a serious doubt upon such prosecution and the

grounds taken therefor.

20. The record also clearly reveals that the action of

approving/sanctioning the prosecution is null and void in the eye

of law, in light of the discrepancies/deficiencies, as above, in the

process so adopted.

21. This Court further finds that the requisite terms and

conditions, as mentioned in a cyclostyled paper by the appellant-

Board, are not at all relevant, more so when the same does not

(8 of 8) [CRLA-1/1990]

bear the signatures of any authorized person or competent

authority.

22. This Court further finds that the action of the appellant-

Board is also unsustainable in the eye of the law, as the same was

done without giving the respondents the opportunity as

mandatorily provided under the law.

23. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned judgments passed

by the learned courts below are well reasoned speaking

judgments, and hence, the same require no interference by this

Court.

24. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

77-84-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)