ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
M/s Daurala Sugar Works Thru. Managing
Director —Applicant
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
U/S 482/378/407 No.1954 of 2020
Decided on 20.10.2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discharge of accused – At the stage of Section 245/246 Cr.P.C. question is not whether evidence if accepted would warrant a conviction. Question is only whether case established from materials placed before court, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction.
(2) When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained – It is function of trial Judge to do so.

Headnote:

(A) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Sections 44 and 49 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 245, 482/483 – Alleged discharge of polluted effluent without treatment – Rejection of application seeking discharge from case – Provisions of Section 49 of Act of 1974 as they stand today do not require any sanction of Board irrespective of fact whether complaint is filed by Board or any other person – It is not the mandate under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. that evidence if unrebutted would warrant conviction, charge has to be framed – Evidence will have to be adduced and thereafter court will have to consider whether a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction is made out – It is not the mandate of law that court need only consider whether evidence if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction – A bonafide complainant must be given a fuller opportunity to substantiate his allegations – Complainant actuated by oblique motive will have to be shown door – An innocent accused who does not deserve to endure trauma of a prosecution must be saved of such predicament – In instant case, available materials on record when considered in its totality must certainly lead Court to conclusion that such a case had been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of accused persons – Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution)/CBI, was perfectly right in rejecting application for discharge of petitioners – Petition dismissed.

Held: A perusal of above quoted provision makes it crystal clear that if the complaint is filed by the Board, the provision does not require any sanction and if the complaint is filed by person other than the Board, there should be previous sanction of the Board. It would not be out of place to mention here that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1974 as they stand today do not require any sanction of the Board irrespective of the fact whether the complaint is filed by the Board or any other person.

It is crucial to note that it is not the mandate under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. that evidence if unrebutted would warrant a conviction, charge has to be framed. The language of Section 245(1) makes it very clear that evidence will have to be adduced and thereafter the court will have to consider whether a case, which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction is made out. It is not the mandate of law that the court need only consider whether “evidence if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction.” What should be considered is whether a case if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction. I must note that there is a distinction between these two circumstances. A bona fide complainant must be given a fuller opportunity to substantiate his allegations. The complainant actuated by oblique motive will have to be shown the door. An innocent accused who does not deserve to endure the trauma of a prosecution must be saved of such predicament.

In the instant case, the available materials on record when considered in its totality must certainly lead the Court to the conclusion that such a case had been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution)/CBI, Lucknow was perfectly right in rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioners. On reading the complaint and other materials on record, it cannot be said that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate was wrong in dismissing the said application for discharge. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners for setting aside order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution)/CBI, Lucknow while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the light of the above discussion and in view of the specific averments in the complaint as well as the other documents on record coupled with statutory provisions namely Sections 25, 26, 44 & 47 of the Act of 1974, I am unable to find out any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned passed by the Courts below by way of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C.

The Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution)/CBI, Lucknow is directed to proceed with the complaint and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within 1 and 1/2 year from today. (Paras 28, 35, 39 and 54)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Parameters – When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained – It is function of trial Judge to do so – Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles – Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution – If allegations set out in complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code – However, it is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of case before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal.

Held: When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained. To put it clear, it is the function of the trial Judge to do so. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, it is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. (Para 52)

Result: Petition dismissed.