Liability under criminal law requires specific roles to be established in the complaint; mere office holding is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Revision Application is filed by Applicants – original Accused Nos.3 and 4 challenging the judgement dated 23.08.2002 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 1997 whereby judgment dated 31.12.1996 in Regular Criminal Case No.324 of 1988 has been confirmed. By judgment dated 31.12.1996, Trial Court convicted Applicants – Accused for offences under Sections 44 readwith 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short “the said Act”) and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- . On 23.08.2002 the impugned judgment was stayed and on 19.09.2002 the CRA was admitted by this Court.

2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudicating the Revision Application are as follows:-

2.1. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are original Accused Nos.3 and 4. Complainant is Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (for short “the Board”).

2.2. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 were the Director and Manager respectively of a Company known as M/s. Guj Petro Chem Private Limited (for short "the said Company"). The said Company has its factory situated at Taloja, Panvel and was dealing with raw material like used oil, processed N-505, caustic soda, sulphuric acid etc. for production of spray oil, white oil, solvent oil and other petroleum products.

2.3. In compliance of Section 24 of the said Act which provides for prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter and Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act which provide for obtaining consent of the Pollution Control Board with regard to proposed discharge of trade or sewage effluent or waste into a stream or bringing into use any new or altered outlet for discharge of trade or sewage effluent or waste into a stream in the water pollution prevention area, the Director of the said Company made an application to Respondent No.1 – Board for grant of consent to the said Company for discharge of effluent from its factory. Respondent No.1 – Board after conducting scrutiny and inquiry, granted consent to the said Company vide consent order No.BO/NB/203/7329 dated 07.08.1979 on certain terms and conditions.

2.4. On 07.01.1988, Sub-Regional Officer of the Board issued a notice to the said company for drawing sample of the effluent discharged and on the same day sample was collected from the effluent carrying drainage outlet in the factory of the said Company and sent for analysis to Government Analyst. On 19.02.1988 Government Analyst submitted Analysis Report No.SPHL/P-79/Act/8/of 88 dated 19.02.1988. This Report was placed before Respondent No.1 – Board in its 80^th meeting held on 14.06.1988 for consideration. The Board arrived at a conclusion of initiating prosecution against the said Company alongwith 18 other Companies in the area as all Companies did not adhere to the parameters / standards enumerated in their respective consents order and were releasing effluent which was highly polluting in nature. Hence on 04.08.1988 Respondent No.1 – Board accorded sanction for initiation of prosecution against the said Company alongwith 18 other Companies.

2.5. The consent granted by the Board to the said Company on 07.08.1979 was renewed time and again and was subsisting till the date of filing of the Complaint. The latest consent order as can be seen placed on record before me is dated 22.07.1988.

2.6. On 05.11.1988, Respondent No.1 – Board through its Regional Officer Mr. R.M. Kulkarni filed Complaint under Sections 43 and 44 readwith 24 to 26 of the said Act against the said Company and present Applicants being in charge and responsible for conducting the day-to-day operations in the factory of the said Company. On the same date, process was issued against all Accused persons and Trial commenced.

2.7. In support of its case, the Board led evidence of two witnesses viz; PW-1 Mr. Vishwas Mundhe who was an officer of the Board and PW-2 Mr. Raghunath Mahadev Kulkarni who was the R