City Municipal Council, as a body corporate, can be prosecuted under Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the offences by a body corporate are covered under Section 49.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. These appeals raise an important question as to whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1974”). By these appeals, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has challenged the judgment of High Court of Karnataka dated 16.02.2015 by which applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents, who were working as Municipal Commissioner and Chief Officers of Municipal Council, were allowed and the proceeding initiated for their prosecution by appellant under the Act, 1974 has been quashed.

2. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2015 has allowed three separate applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Petition Nos.2627 of 2012, 1537 of 2011 and 1010 of 2011. All the three applications were filed on the basis of similar facts. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in Criminal Petition No. 2627 of 2012 filed in the High Court, for deciding these appeals.

3. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are:-

3.1 The appellant Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is a statutory body established under Section 4 of the Act, 1974. The Board is a body corporate having perpetuate succession and common seal. The Act, 1974 provides for special procedure for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act, 1974.

3.2 First respondent to the appeal is Shri B. Heera Naik, who was working as the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. The second respondent M.A. Baig and the third respondent D.L. Narayan were also Ex-Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore.

3.3 The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board filed a complaint being C.C. No. 1101 of 2006 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore praying for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Act, 1974 against the accused persons and to punish them for the offences. In the complaint, the City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore was impleaded as accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were all Ex- Commissioners, who had held the office of Commissioner from different periods from 03.11.2004 till the date of filing of complaint. The complaint stated that Board had accorded a consent to the accused persons to discharge sewage effluent after treatment which was expired on 30.06.2006 and thereafter the same has not been renewed. One of the conditions of the said consent was that the accused persons should provide Sewage Treatment Plant within six months to treat sewage generated in the City Municipal Council Area which has not been done so far, nor any steps have been taken in that regard, and on the other hand, the accused persons have continuously discharging the untreated sewage into the water bodies like ponds, lakes, natural valleys. The Complaint stated that non-obtaining of the consent after 30.06.2006, non-providing of Sewage Treatment Plant, Under Ground Drainage facility and discharging the untreated sewage into the neighbouring water bodies constitute the violation of Section 25 of the Act, 1974, which is punishable under Section 44 of the Act, 1974.

3.4 Similar complaints were filed by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board with regard to the Town Municipal Council, Kengeri, Bangalore and the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council as well as complaint against City Municipal Council, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Mysore Road and its Commissioner.

3.5 The respondents to these appeals filed criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceeding initiated by appellant for prosecution of the respondents under the Act, 1974.

3.6 The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated 16.02.2015 allowed all