Sanction for prosecution under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 must be specific and include the individuals to be prosecuted.

Headnote:
AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - SECTION 43 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF COMPANY DOES NOT INCLUDE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS - BOARD MUST SPECIFICALLY SANCTION PROSECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, directors and officers of a company, challenged the issue of process against them in a criminal case for offences under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The State Board had granted sanction to prosecute the company, but not the individual petitioners.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sanction for prosecution of the company did not include the directors and officers. The Board had to specifically sanction the prosecution of individuals.
Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution of the company included the directors and officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 43 of the Act, which requires sanction from the State Board for prosecution under the Act. The court held that the Board had the statutory duty to consider the materials placed before it and decide who should be prosecuted. This power could not be delegated to an officer of the Board.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. However, the court allowed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the company.

JUDGEMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J.:---This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the issue of process against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 307 of 1988 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. Heard both the sides.

2. The first respondent-complaint filed a complaint against the third respondent and the petitioners for offences under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The allegation of the complainant is that the accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3) is a company and accused Nos. 2 to 5, the present petitioners are the Chairman, Managing Director, Director and Factory Manager of the said company. That the company is having a factory where it is using lead press, lead oxide, etc. as raw materials. That the accused have failed to provide suitable arrangements to protect emission to satisfy standards prescribed under the Act and the rules. Hence it is alleged that the accused have violated many of the provisions of the Act and the rules and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act.

3. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 challenged the issue of process before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 170 of 1988. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application. Hence the petitioners have approached this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution is bad since there is no sanction to prosecute them. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents contended that sanction for prosecution against the company includes all the persons who are responsible for day to day affairs of the said company and the sanction against the petitioners deemed to have been granted.

4. The short point for consideration is whether the prosecution of the petitioners is sustainable in the absence of specific sanction against them?

5. The provision for sanction is found in section 43 of the Act which reads as follows:-

"Section 43:- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of the State Board and no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act."

It is, therefore, seen that the State Board has to give sanction for prosecution under the Act. In this case no doubt, the Board has given a sanction and the sanction reads as follows:-

"RESOLVED THAT the Board approves to file prosecution against M/s. Indian Lead Pvt. Ltd., Majiwada, Thane for breach of consent conditions. The Board further authorises the Air Pollution Control Officer/Sub Regional Officers to file the complaint in the appropriate Court on behalf of the Board, subject to the directions of the Central Government in the matter."

The above resolution of the Board approves the sanction of prosecution against M/s. Indian Lead Pvt. Ltd., which is the company, which is accused No. 1 in the complaint and respondent No. 3 in the present petition.

The question is whether sanction for prosecution of the company is sufficient to include all or any of the directors of the company as may be chosen by the complainant.

6. The complaint is filed by Air Pollution Officer. He cannot be delegated the power to pick and choose the directors and officers of the company. The statutory power of giving sanction is given to the Board. The Board has to apply its mind to all the materials placed before it and then sanction prosecution against the company, its officers and directors who are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The authority and power of the Board cannot be delegated to an officer to pick and choose the accused against whom the prosecution can be launched.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to decisions of Rajasthan High Court.

In 1980 Cri.L.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document