Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 441
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Medwin Hospitals - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-21-98
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec. 49 - A. P. Pollution Control Board filed complaint – Quash of Criminal proceedings - Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed standards or safe disposal of wastes generated by the hospital/health care establishments under the rules - Petitioner-accused Hospital failed to comply with the statutory requirement and failed to obtain consent as required under the Act and also failed to implement regulatory and promotional guidelines. The omission to have valid consent is punishable under Sec. 44 of the Act. The commission by act of discharging, polluting, noxious, poisonous matter and water is punishable under Sec. 43 of the Act – Held, word person including both a natural person or an artificial person includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. It need not be necessarily a incorporated company or a firm. For the purpose of that Act, a person includes an occupier in relation to any factory or premises. Viewed from that angle, it cannot be said that the first accused cannot be said to be an occupier carrying on business in the field of Health care. In fact, it is described in the complaint as Health Care establishment/hospital. Under those circumstances, Medwin Hospital itself could be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act without having any regard as to whether it is a company or a firm as the case may be- criminal law cannot be set in motion against an accused person in a very casual and mechanical manner. The Magistrate before taking cognizance is duty bound to meticulously peruse the contents of the complaint so as to satisfy himself that such contents do reveal the commission of offence as alleged. The question of issuing a process does not arise without the learned Magistrate forming an opinion based on the material available at the time of taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate is required to not only look into the contents of the complaint but also statement of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, examined and other material including the documents made available by the complainant. Such application of mind is a condition precedent for issuing a process against the accused. It is well settled that issuing process in a criminal case against an accused itself is fraught with serious consequence. But in my considered opinion, it is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to pass an elaborate order disclosing as to why he intends to take cognizance of a case. It would meet the requirement of law, if the proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate would disclose the application of mind. Afterall the learned Magistrate is not deciding any case at that stage- Court not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Petition dismisse
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr. P. C. by the accused in C. C. No. 505 of 1996 on the file of the learned IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioners pray to quash the said proceedings on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
( 2 ) THE second respondent herein A. P. Pollution Control Board filed complaint under Sec. 49 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short the Act ) for prosecution under Sec. 43 and 44 for violation of Sec. 24, 25 and 26 of the said Act. In the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed standards or safe disposal of wastes generated by the hospital/health care establishments under the rules framed in A. P. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1976 (for short the said Rules ). Sub-clause (j) of Rule 2 of the said Rules define Health care establishments which mean and include all the Hospital, Nursing Homes, Diagnostic centers and Laboratories irrespective of size/capacity bed strenghts. Rule 36 of the said Rules says all the Health Care establishments are required to follow the regulatory and promotional guidelines as mentioned in schedule V of the said Rules. Rule 37 mandates that all Health care establishments having bed strength of 25 or more shall have to take consent for establishment and operation which discharge the sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land under Sec. 25 of the Act. Health Care wastes are classified into weight main categories i. e. , general waste, pathological waste, radio active waste, chemical waste, infectious waste and potentially infectious waste, sharps, pharmaceutical waste and pressurised containers. The other details stated in the complaint are not required to be noticed for the present purpose. There are specific allegations in the complaint against the first petitioner-accused. It is alleged that as on today it is operating with 350 bed strength and carrying its business in the field of Cardiology, Nuclear Medicine, Blood Bank, Dialysis, (Nephrology), Gynaecology, Radiology, Gastroenterlogy, ENT, Neurology, Pediatric, Blood Bank, Out Patent Department etc. It is drawing water from Municipal Water Sources/bore well for their use and generating 160 M to 180 M of Waste water. The water is being discharged into sewer line of Municipal drainage system without any treatment which causes ultimate water contamination in the river Musi.
( 3 ) IN addition to the waste water, the Hospital is alleged to be generating 150 kgs. . per day of solid waste. There is no proper disposal system to discharge the solid waste especially infectious solid waste, the Amputed limbs, other operated materials and other infectious solid wastes generated from the Hospital are being disposed through MCH which ultimately dumping at open yard Autonagar, near Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad which is located within the basin area of river Musi. The mode of disposal is hazardous to human health and Environment. It is an offence under Sec. 24 of the Act. The accused Hospital is not following the statutory guidelines as prescribed by the Act even after public notice Dt. 15-1-1996 and individual notices dt. 25-1-96 and 4-3-1996 and committing offences by commission as well as omission of the Act which are punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the said Act.
( 4 ) IT is also alleged that the petitioner-accused Hospital failed to comply with the statutory requirement and failed to obtain consent as required under the Act and also failed to implement regulatory and promotional guidelines. The omission to have valid consent is punishable under Sec. 44 of the Act. The commission by act of discharging, polluting, noxious, poisonous matter and water is punishable under Sec. 43 of the Act.
( 5 ) THE complaint is presented by the Environmental Engineer, incharge of Regional Office, Hyderabad as an Officer of the Board and authorised through Resolution o
