[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Board For Prevention Cont vs M/S Bansidhar Rameshwardas And Com on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52813]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 259/1997
Secretary, Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of
Pollution, 4 Institutional Area, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Bansidhar Rameshwardas & Company, Ramdev Road, Pali
2. Champa Lal
3. Shyamlal
4. Rameshwardas (expired, appeal abated)
Partners M/s Bansidhar Rameshwardas & Company, Ramdev
Road, Pali
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Piyush Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Ms Anjali Kaushik, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Judgment reservd on : 03/12/2025
Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025
1. The appellant Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and
Control of Water Pollution has preferred the present appeal under
Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the
judgment and order dated 25.11.1993 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in Criminal
Complaint No. 5/1992, whereby the respondents-accused M/s
Banshidhar Rameshwar Das & Company, its partners Champa Lal
and Shyam Lal were acquitted of the offences alleged under
Sections 24, 25 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter "the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (2 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
Act"). The trial court recorded acquittal by granting benefit of
doubt.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present and ready to
argue the matter. However, none appears on behalf of the
respondents. In these circumstances, Ms. Anjali Kaushik,
Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on
behalf of the respondents under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be
paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable
assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the trial court, was
that the accused firm, engaged in dyeing and printing activities at
Ramdev Road, Pali, was discharging approximately 10,000 litres of
untreated trade effluent per day into municipal drains ultimately
joining the Bandi river. It was alleged that on 24.03.1979, PW-2
Madan Mohan Goel, Assistant Engineer of the Board, conducted an
inspection after serving notice under the Rules and collected
samples from the final outlet. The samples, sealed at site in the
presence of the occupier, were forwarded to the Board laboratory
at Jaipur and were analysed vide report Ex. P-8, which according
to the Board revealed violations of the prescribed standards under
IS-2490. Earlier, the accused firm had obtained consent under
Sections 25/26 of the Act which, as per the Board, stood valid only
till 31.12.1978. It was alleged that the accused continued to
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (3 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
discharge effluent without renewal of consent, thereby attracting
penal liability.
4. During trial, one of the partners, Rameshwar Das, expired on
13.10.1993 and proceedings against him abated. The learned
Magistrate relied mainly on the testimony of PW-2 but found
significant lacunae in sampling procedures, non-production of key
witnesses, absence of proof regarding compliance of sampling
rules, and non-establishment of chain of custody. Accordingly,
acquittal was recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
impugned judgment is illegal and perverse. It was urged that the
learned Magistrate erred in discarding the testimony of PW-1 K.L.
Goel, Member-Secretary of the Board, merely because cross-
examination could not be completed owing to his death. Reliance
was placed on Section 33 of the Evidence Act, permitting use of
such testimony recorded in judicial proceedings. Learend counsel
further submitted that the Magistrate wrongly drew adverse
inference for non-examination of Ashok Gupta (J.En.) and
Laxmikant (Manager), although PW-2 had categorically stated that
he alone performed the acts of serving notice, collecting samples,
sealing containers, preparing inspection notes and dispatching
samples. It was argued that producing more witnesses to prove
the same fact was unnecessary and that the quality of evidence,
not quantity, is material.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (4 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
6. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court
erroneously held that provisions of Section 100 CrPC regarding
search and seizure applied to inspections under Section 23 of the
Act. It was argued that the inspections are not searches and do
not require independent witnesses. Notices of inspection and
sampling, namely Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-11, were duly served.
7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the finding regarding absence of properly notified
standards is unsustainable. The Board had duly adopted IS-2490
Part I standards, communicated to the accused under Ex. P-3, and
if aggrieved, the accused had the statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 28 which was never exercised.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the conclusion of the learned
Magistrate regarding break in the chain of custody is contrary to
record. PW-2 clearly stated that he deposited the sample in the
Board laboratory, and Ex. P-8 records that the seal was intact. By
virtue of Section 54 of the Act, the analysis report is per se
admissible.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial
court failed to appreciate important incriminating documents such
as consent application, consent conditions, inspection report Ex. P-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (5 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
7, analysis report Ex. P-8, minutes of meeting Ex. P-9, and the
information furnished by the accused Ex. P-13.
10. Learned counsel contended that the learned Magistrate
misinterpreted Sections 25 and 26, failing to recognise that even
discharge through an existing outlet after the commencement of
the Act required consent, irrespective of whether the outlet was
pre-existing. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for
acceptance of the appeal, reversal of the acquittal and conviction
of the respondents.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned judgment contending that the prosecution was
riddled with incurable defects. It was argued that the prosecution
failed to examine material witnesses, particularly Ashok Gupta,
who admittedly accompanied PW-2 during inspection and whose
signature was absent on the inspection report. This omission
weakened the credibility of the prosecution story.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
PW-2 admitted destruction of contemporaneous inspection notes,
non-compliance with sampling protocol, and inability to specify
who transported the sample to Jaipur. There was no evidence that
the sample reached the laboratory in an untampered state. The
sampling was not done in accordance with mandatory provisions
of the Act and Rules, particularly the requirement of dividing the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (6 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
sample into two portions and handing over one to the occupier.
The accused specifically disputed this, and the endorsement on
Ex. P-11 did not satisfactorily prove compliance.
13. The further contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that the prosecution failed to prove the existence
of validly notified standards or demonstrate that the alleged
effluent exceeded any legally enforceable limit. The prosecution
also failed to establish that the discharge reached any "stream" as
defined, or prove actual pollution of Bandi river.
14. It was further submitted that the material documents such
as minutes of the Board meeting, alleged consent conditions, and
certain notices were either inadmissible as secondary evidence or
were never proved according to law. With these submissions,
learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
15. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record.
16. It is necessary to recall that in an appeal against acquittal
the High Court should not lightly interfere. Unless the findings of
the trial court are shown to be manifestly unreasonable or
perverse, the view taken in favour of the accused must ordinarily
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (7 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
be allowed to stand. If on the basis of the material on record two
possible views emerge, the one favouring the accused must
prevail.
17. Examining the material with this principle in mind, it
becomes clear that the trial court found several serious
shortcomings in the prosecution case, and these shortcomings are
borne out by the record. The prosecution rested almost entirely on
the testimony of PW-2 Madan Mohan Goel, the Assistant Engineer
who conducted the inspection on 24.03.1979. However, PW-2
himself stated that he was accompanied by Ashok Gupta, Junior
Engineer, and by the factory manager, Laxmikant, both of whom
would have been material witnesses to the proceedings. Neither of
these persons was examined during trial. Their absence deprives
the prosecution of important corroboration, particularly because
PW-2 admitted that the contemporaneous notes made at the site
were later destroyed and that the formal inspection report
produced in the case was prepared subsequently. These
circumstances legitimately raise doubt regarding the accuracy and
completeness of the inspection process.
18. A further deficiency appears in the matter of sample
collection. The Water Act requires that any sample taken for
analysis be divided into two portions, one of which must be
handed over to the occupier of the premises. PW-2 conceded in
his cross-examination that the sample in the present case was not
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (8 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
divided, and the accused have consistently asserted that no part
of the sample was ever given to them. The endorsement on the
notice relied upon by the prosecution does not convincingly
establish that the statutory procedure was followed. Since the
prosecution case depends fundamentally on the result of the
chemical examination, non-compliance with mandatory sampling
safeguards goes to the root of the matter.
19. Another significant aspect of the matter is the failure of the
prosectuion to establish the chain of custody of the sample. PW-2
was unable to state with clarity as to who actually transported the
sample to the Jaipur laboratory or when it was deposited there,
and no documentary receipt of its submission was produced. In
such circumstances, it becomes unsafe to rely solely on the
chemical analysis report, as the prosecution has not proved that
the sample remained sealed and untampered from the moment of
collection until analysis.
20. The prosecution also failed to prove that the standards
alleged to have been violated were legally enforceable. Though
reliance was placed on IS-2490 norms, no notification or
document was produced to show that such standards had been
formally adopted or notified under the Water Act at the relevant
time. Penal liability cannot be imposed without proving that the
discharge contravened duly notified and binding standards.
Moreover, the prosecution did not establish that the alleged
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (9 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
effluent actually reached the Bandi river or any "stream" within
the meaning of the Act. No evidence, either through inspection
notes, maps, or witness testimony, was produced to show that the
discharge from the unit ultimately entered a natural water body.
This is an essential ingredient of the offences charged and cannot
be presumed.
21. Certain documents relied upon by the prosecution, including
minutes of Board meetings and consent conditions, were also not
properly proved through competent witnesses and therefore, could
not be treated as substantive evidence. These omissions further
weaken the prosecution case.
22. In view of these cumulative deficiencies, viz. absence of
corroboration, defective sampling, broken chain of custody, failure
to prove legally notified standards, non-establishment of discharge
into a stream, and non-proof of key documents, the view taken by
the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse or
unreasonable. The prosecution left several important gaps in
establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit
of doubt was rightly extended to the accused.
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no justification to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52813] (10 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment),
Pali. The appeal is devoid of merit.
24. Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 378(1) CrPC by
the Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water
Pollution stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated
25.11.1993 acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections
24, 25 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is hereby affirmed.
25. The record be returned to the trial court.
26. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid her fee by the Rajasthan
State Legal Services Authority as per rules.
(FARJAND ALI),J
12-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
