JUDGMENT :

Ravi V. Hosmani, J.

1. Since all these appeals involve similar facts, common provisions and the same complainant and are decided by the trial Court on common question of law, they were connected and heard together. Hence, they are taken up for common disposal. For the sake of convenience, the facts pertaining to Criminal Appeal No. 100160/2014 only are referred hereinafter.

2. A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) came to be filed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board against the accused on 29.06.2006 stating that the complainant is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned to it under the Act in the State of Karnataka. It was stated that in exercise of the powers under Section 19(1) of the Act notifying the entire State as 'air pollution control area', vide notification dated 30.05.1988 bearing No. DEEE5ECO87, Bangalore.

3. It was further stated that the accused was stacking iron ore in its land bearing Sy. No. 4 at Devalli(T), Tinnaighat, Joida taluk, Uttara Kannada district. It was stated that stacking of iron ore without previous consent of the complainant Board was violative of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, which is a punishable offence under Section 37 of the Act. It was also stated that the activity of the accused fell within the definition of Industrial Plant defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. It was further stated that the Board inspected the iron ore stock yard of the accused on 05.07.2005, when it was observed that accused did not provide any pollution control measures and was operating without obtaining consent under Section 21. It was further stated that at a meeting held on 24.12.2005 under chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada district, in the presence of officials of the Board and directions were issued to representatives of the iron ore stock yards, transporters and exporters of iron ore regarding pollution control measures to be adopted by them. They were granted time upto 10.01.2006 for compliance. On 10.01.2006 a joint inspection of stock yards was conducted by Board officials along with officials of revenue department and Department of Mines and Geology and mahazars were drawn. Several violations were noted. Thereafter one more inspection was conducted on 05.04.2006, wherein it was noticed that accused had continued illegal operations without complying with the directions issued under provisions of the Act.

4. Subsequently at the meeting dated 04.05.2006 held by Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada district, it was decided that stacking and transportation of iron ore should be avoided during monsoon, in order to protect nearby water bodies from pollution. The time limit for implementation of pollution control measures was extended upto 10.06.2006. Thereafter one more inspection of the iron ore stock yard was conducted on 24.06.2006 and mahazars were drawn. It was noticed that there was continued violation of Sections 21, 22 and Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the complainant sought for convicting the accused for the offences committed by them under Sections 21, 22 and 37 of the Act.

5. Upon taking cognizance, after recording sworn statement of the complainant, summons were issued to accused. The accused entered appearance, denied the charges and sought trial. In support of complainant's case, four witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW4 and Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked. Thereafter the incriminating material was explained to the accused, who denied the same. No explanation was offered. The same was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.

6. Based on the above, trial Court framed following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the complainant has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that after 10.06.2006, the acc