Amendments reducing punishments under the Water Act can benefit pending cases, substituting imprisonment with substantial monetary penalties, reflecting a strict stance against environmental violations.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The petitioner herein was convicted by the Court of learned ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Trial Court"], in case arising out of CC No. 519826/2016, for offences punishable under Sections 24 and 25 read with Section 26 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [hereafter "the Water Act"], vide judgment dated 20.04.2017. Vide order on sentence dated 25.04.2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years along with payment of a total fine of Rs.2 lakhs. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, being CA No. 06/2017, was decided by the court of Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Appellate Court-I"], vide judgment dated 11.08.2017, whereby the conviction was upheld, while the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh order on the point of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Delhi Pollution Control Board [hereafter "DPCC"] challenged the said judgment before this Court by way of CRL.REV.P. 111/2018. This Court, vide judgment dated 19.12.2022, directed the Appellate Court to adjudicate, in appeal, the issue of sentencing as well. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner, being CA No. 121/2017, was decided by the court of learned ASJ-01 (POCSO), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Appellate Court-II"] on the point of sentence, wherein the order on sentence dated 25.04.2017 was modified to the extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced from three years to two years, while the total fine of Rs.2 lakhs was upheld.

2. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, seeks to assail the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court-I and Appellate Court-II, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences under the Water Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the DPCC in the backdrop of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to prevention of pollution of river Yamuna. It was averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken cognizance of a news item published in The Hindustan Times dated 18.07.1994, titled “And Quiet Flows the Maili Yamuna” which was registered and heard as I.A. No. 7 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725/1994. In the said proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, had directed that no industrial effluent shall be discharged, directly or indirectly, into river Yamuna with effect from 15.11.1999. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further directed that no industry in Delhi shall discharge its effluent into any drain leading to river Yamuna or into the river itself, in a manner which would result in pollution of the said river. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed, vide order dated 13.09.1999, that sufficient statutory provisions were available to the State to take appropriate action against polluters to ensure that the river was not polluted, and accordingly directed the National Capital Territory of Delhi to take necessary measures. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of NCT of Delhi, thr