The doubt regarding the collection of effluent samples and the defective framing of charges influenced the court's decision to uphold the acquittal of the company.

1. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (‘MPCB’ for short) has preferred this Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1997 whereby the Respondent No.1-Company was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 24 read with Section 43 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Company. Perused the records and proceedings and the judgment and order passed at the first instance by the learned JMFC, Panvel in Regular Criminal Case No.122 of 1994 dated 20.12.1996 and the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001 passed in the Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag.

3. The MPCB had filed a complaint against the Respondent No.1 and two of its officers under Sections 43, 44, 45(A) read with Sections 24, 25, 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Said Act’) on 21.4.1994. It is the complainant’s case that the Respondent No.1 is the limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The other two accused were persons in-charge and responsible to conduct the business of the accused company and in that capacity, they were jointly and severally liable for noncompliance of consent conditions and discharge of polluted water from the factory of Accused No.1 into the environment not conforming to the standards prescribed by the Board in its consent issued to the Accused No.1 and the renewal of consent orders issued from time to time. The member secretary of the Board granted consent to Accused No.1 dated 10.1.1983 which was valid upto 31.1.1985 stipulating therein certain terms and conditions for operating plant by the Accused. One of the conditions relates to disposal whereunder the Respondents were under obligation to discharge treated effluent in MIDC Sewage System; and until such facilities are made available, it shall be disposed of into local nala. It is the Complainant’s case that the Respondents had discharged its effluent in violation of the standard prescribed by the consent. On 17.2.1994, sample of the said effluent was collected and analysed whereupon it was found that the Respondent- Company was discharging the effluent causing environmental hazard. The Complainant further alleged that on 17.2.1994, a sample was collected at the extreme end of the drain carrying the effluent of the factory of the accused. Samples were sent to the Government Analyst, Public Health Laboratory for the analysis and also the Board Laboratory at New Bombay. The reports would show that parameters like suspended solids amonical nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were not meeting the standards prescribed by the Board. In the complaint, it was alleged that factory of the Respondent-Company was discharging highly alkaline water in Kasadi river and thereby causing environmental pollution. On this set of allegations, the complaint was filed by the Board.

4. The learned JMFC after appreciating the evidence acquitted the officers of the said company, however, convicted the company by the judgment and order dated 20.12.1996 whereby company was convicted under Section 24 read with Section 43 of the said Act and imposed the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction, the company had preferred an Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag, Raigad who was pleased to acquit the company by the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001. That against the said acquittal, the Board has preferred this Appeal.

5. As it appears from the record that sample was collected on 17.2.1994 by the authorised officer of the Board and was sent for analysis to the State Laboratory and the laboratory of the Water Board. Therefore, the prosecution was in respect of alkaline