IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences under the Water Act requires strict adherence to the 60-day notice provision, failing which proceedings may be quashed.

ORDER :

The petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in P.C.R.No.6 of 2024 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for offences punishable under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is an industry and petitioners 2 and 3 are its Director and General Manager respectively. The industry is engaged in manufacturing white crystal sugar and co-generating ethanol power plant which is said to have been established with the consent and all other statutory provisions of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (‘the Board’ for short). The issue in the lis would commence from a complaint being registered by the Deputy Environmental Officer of the Board allegedly finding the petitioner/industry discharging untreated trade effluent to Mullamari River and had started the operation of ethanol production without proper disposal of spent water and disposing the waste in unscientific manner. It is based upon the aforesaid allegations a complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for offences punishable under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Act. The concerned Court takes cognizance for the aforesaid offences, directs registration of criminal case against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and issues summons to them. Registering criminal case and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the show cause notice and the closure order issued to the petitioners had become subject matter of proceedings before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 29-01-2024 had stayed further proceedings, pursuant to the show cause notice. The Division Bench disposed of Writ Petition No.2769 of 2024 in terms of its order dated 08-02-2024 quashing the proceedings on the score that the petitioners were not heard before passing the closure order against them, however, granting liberty to the petitioner therein who was the industry/accused No.1 to file its reply.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very closure order that forms the basis for registration of crime is now effaced by the order of the Division Bench. Therefore, these proceedings also should be quashed. He would, apart from the said fact, contend that Section 49 of the Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance if certain aspects are not complied with and one of the aspects which is not complied is, no 60 days notice is issued, is the submission of the learned counsel. He would seek quashment of proceedings on the aforesaid grounds.

6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri K Shashikiran Shetty appearing for the Board would take this Court through the detailed statement of objections filed and contend that the Division Bench of this Court records the undertaking given by the 1st petitioner/industry that no cane crushing activity will be undertaken and therefore, permitting further proceedings would not arise. It is his submission that it is an admission on the part of the petitioner/industry that it was violating the law till it gave an undertaking before the Division Bench. It is his submission that merely because by a subsequent action the closure order is quashed, it would not mean that the petitioners can escape the liability of facing criminal proceedings for offences under the Act. He would seek dismissal of the petition contending that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made