IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Ravi V.Hosmani, J.
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Repd. By Its Regional Officer - Appellant
Versus
Sri.K.L Chandak Executive Director M/S The West Coast Paper Mills Limited – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100246 of 2015
Decided On : 16-01-2021
Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 43,44, 24, 47(1), 21 (3), (4), (5) and 25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 200 and 313 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 141 and sub-section (1) of Section 141 - Legal requirement - Examination of accused - Discharge of trade effluents - Accused Industry is manufacturing paper and duplex board with a capacity of 85500 MTPA - Industry was permitted for discharge of trade effluents consent issued by the Board - Even consent for establishment (CFE) for modernization and expansion of production capacity contained a condition against increase in pollution load - Industry was also issued with CFE to upgrade its existing Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) vide order - But when the industry was inspected samples of discharge collected were tested, analysis report indicated discharge of effluents exceeding standards stipulated by the Board - Biological oxygen demands (BOD) was higher than prescribed - Central Pollution Control Board, Bengaluru also conducted in-depth monitoring of Industry and submitted a report – Held, alleged that accused was discharging trade effluents without valid consent. It is not in dispute that Industry was issued with a CFE on 6.04.2002, which was valid perusal of Ex.P32 reveals that an application for extension was made by the Industry same is refused vide order dated marked as Ex.P32 - In view of sub-section (7) of Section 25, in case of failure to communicate either grant or refusal of an application for Consent, it shall be deemed to have been granted unconditionally refusal order is is not stated to be cause of action for complaint - Impugned judgment passed by trial court acquitting the accused for failure on the part of complainant to establish the commission of offences by accused beyond reasonable doubt cannot be found fault with - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2015, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli in CC No.651/2004 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the complainant Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) is in appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’ for short) was filed by the Regional Officer – Deputy Environmental Officer, Karwar on 04.08.2004 stating that the complainant is a statutory board constituted under Section 4 of the Act to exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred on it under the Act, through out the State of Karnataka.
3. The accused is the Executive Director of M/s. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., located at Bangur Nagar, Dandeli. The said Industry is manufacturing paper and duplex board with a capacity of 85500 MTPA. The Industry was permitted for discharge of trade effluents of 64800 KLD, under a consent issued by the Board. The consent expired on 30.06.2003. Even the consent for establishment (CFE) dated 06.04.2002 for modernization and expansion of production capacity from 85500 MTPA to 163750 MTPA contained a condition against increase in pollution load. The industry was also issued with CFE to upgrade its existing Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) vide order dated 20.12.2002. But when the industry was inspected on 27.04.2003, and samples of discharge collected were tested, analysis report indicated discharge of effluents exceeding standards stipulated by the Board. The biological oxygen demands (BOD) was higher than prescribed. The Central Pollution Control Board, Bengaluru also conducted in-depth monitoring of Industry from 20.01.2003 to 21.01.2003 and submitted a report. The said report revealed effluent discharge exceeding prescribed standards. A show cause notice was issued on 05.05.2003 for personal hearing. After personal hearing on 12.05.2003, time limit was extended upto end of September 2003 to complete commissioning of upgraded ETP. But, the analysis report of samples collected on 18.06.2003 again revealed discharge of effluents in excess of prescribed standards. One more show cause notice was given. The industry had not completed construction and commissioning of ETP even as on date of subsequent inspection on 06.10.2003. The analysis report of the samples collected on 06.10.2003 indicated suspended solids exceeding standards stipulated by the Board. This showed that the industry had failed to keep its commitment of completing and commissioning the ETP by 30.09.2003.
4. That the industry was inspected again on 25.05.2004 and 14.06.2004 in presence of Shri K.L. Chandak, Executive Director by serving notice of intention to inspect. The analysis of grab samples collected in his presence indicated discharge of effluents into Halamaddi Nala leading to Kali river even after expiry of CFE and communication of order refusing its extension. This act of accused was offence under Sections 24, 25 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Act. Therefore, the complaint was filed with the following prayer;
5. After recording sworn statement of complainant and taking cognizance summons was issued to accused. Upon appearance, accused denied the charges and sought trial. To prove the charges, four witnesses were examined on behalf of complainant as PW1 to PW4 and Exhibits P1 to P57 were mar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.