Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 1832

2008(8) Supreme 793
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
K.G. Balkrishnan, CJI and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
U.P. Pollution Control Board — Appellant (s)
versus
Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1660 of 2005)
Decided on : 12-12-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Pradeep Mishra and Suraj Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents ; L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Shweta Bharti, Ms. Shreya Sharma, Kaustobh Sinha and B.B. Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Situations under which an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed discussed.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190 – At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same – He is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused – Once the Magistrate takes cognizance, it is not for the superior Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine their case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. (Para 14)
       (1976) 3 SCC 736 – Relied upon.
       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Situations under which an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed discussed. (Paras 14 and 21)
       (1976) 3 SCC 736 – Relied upon.
       (1983) 1 SCC 1; (1998) 5 SCC 343; (2003)12 SCC 461 – Distinguished.
       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 r/w section 47, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Company shown as first accused in the complaint apart from including other functionaries detailing their specific role in the day-to-day affairs and decision making process – High Court erred in quashing the process. (Para 18)
       (1987) 3 SCC 684; (2000) 3 SCC 745 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli, was granted conditional consent by U.P. Pollution Control Board to discharge their trade effluent in the river Sai.
       2.Since the conditions of consent were not being complied with by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., a complaint under Section 44 was filed by the Board against respondent No.1 as well as other persons namely. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint that the aforesaid persons are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and for their monetary benefits continued to discharge noxious and polluting trade effluent of the company without complying with the conditions of consent and mandatory provisions of law.
       3.By impugned order the High Court quashed the complaint so far as it related to respondent No.1 on the main ground that there was no material on record to show that respondent No.1 was, at the relevant time, incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business.
       Finding of the Court :
       High Court erred in quashing the process.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1347 of 2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench quashing the Complaint Case No. 44 of 1988 filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow through its officers against M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. Raebareli and 12 others under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), Lucknow.

3.Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows :

The State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution was constituted on 03.02.1975 by the Government of U.P. and it has been named as - U.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) which is the appellant herein vide notification No. 2179/9-2-100-74 dated 13.07.1982. On the application submitted by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli, seeking consent to discharge effluent, the appellant-Board granted conditional consent to discharge their trade effluent in the river Sai. Since the conditions of consent were not being complied with by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., a letter dated 30.4.1983 was sent by the appellant-Board to M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli informing that non-compliance of the consent conditions is an offence under Section 44 of the Act. On 07.06.1983, the inspection of unit of M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. was done by the officers of the Board wherein it was found that polluted trade effluent was being discharged into the river Sai through drain without any treatment and construction of effluent treatment plant was yet to be started. On 19.01.1984, the Board again sent a letter to M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. that conditions of the consent order dated 22.1.1983 were not complied with. Again it was reiterated that non-compliance of the conditions of consent would be an offence under Section 44 of the Act. On 13.09.1984, the unit was again inspected by the officers of the Board and it was found that effluent was being discharged without any treatment. For this, Modi Carpets Ltd. sent a reply dated 18.10.1984 to the appellant-Board giving clarifications for not complying with the consent conditions and the same was considered and rejected by the Board on 31.10.1984 on the ground that the unit was not complying with the prescribed standards, consent conditions and also the application was incomplete in various aspects.

4.Since M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. was not complying with the provisions of the Act and there was violation of Sections 25 & 26 of the Act, a complaint under Section 44 was filed by the Board through its Assistant Environmental Engineer against respondent No.1 as well as other persons namely, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, Directors, General Manager, Commercial Manager and Company Secretary of M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. before the C.J.M., Raebareli. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint that the aforesaid persons are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and for their monetary benefits continued to discharge noxious and polluting trade effluent of the company without complying with the conditions of consent and mandatory provisions of law. A petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 14119 of 1985 by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. & Ors. for quashing the aforesaid complaint and also for other reliefs. Vide order dated 5.11.1985, the High Court stayed further proceedings in the complaint case. On the objection of the Board that the Principal Bench at Allahabad had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the petition, the first respondent herein filed a petition under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. before Lucknow Bench of the High Court being Crl. Misc. Case No. 1347 of 2001. In the said petition, it was alleged that the first respondent, Dr. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1832

IMPORTANT POINTSituations under which an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed discussed.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Situations under which an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed discussed.