IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of prior environmental clearance is critical, but lack of evidence for actual production and environmental harm can invalidate a conviction under the Environment (Protection) Act.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The applicants are the original accused of the Criminal Case No. 33 of 2013 whereby they have been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi on 12.07.2014, for the offences punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). M/s. Ribecca Laminates - a partnership firm was punished with fine of Rs. 75,000/- and in default of payment of amount of fine, its partners being accused Nos. 2 to 8 to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

1.1 Accused Nos. 2 to 8 found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 15 of the Act, were sentenced for 2 years RI with a fine of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, total Rs.2,60,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months SI.

1.2 The said judgment was challenged by way of filing an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014 by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 by rest of the accused before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi. The appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 13.12.2019.

1.3 Criminal Revision Application No. 41 of 2020 is arising out of the judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014, whereas Criminal Revision Application No. 43 of 2020 is in connection to Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014.

2. The facts of the case as can be culled out from the record suggest that the complainant - Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), Rajkot had filed a complaint against accused No. 1 - company and its 7 partners in business of production of laminates sheets as violating the rules/provisions of Ministry of Environment and Forest Department Notification NO. S.O. 1533 dated 14.09.2006, the provisions of category 5(f) by manufacturing resins without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Central Government and therefore, the company and its partners were made liable for violating the Rules so also of not having obtained the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate from the Central Government, hence committing offence punishable under section 15 of the Act.

2.1 The officers of the GPCB visited the premises of accused No. 1 - company on 22.08.2012 at 11:30 for inspection and at that time the accused No. 3 - Kanjibhai was present, in whose presence the inspection report was prepared. The inspection report sent to the GPCB and the Senior Environment Officer, directed accused No. 1 to immediately stop manufacturing resins and obtain the NOC and CCA certificate and a communication was also sent to PGVCL to disconnect the electricity of the company.

2.2 Further for verification of the status of the direction given by the Senior Environment Officer, an officer of the GPCB on 07.11.2012 at about 18:10 hours inspected the company and issued a notice, which was received by accused No. 1 and its partner Gopalbhai. The officer of the GPCB made a report that company and its partners had not obtained NOC and CCA, violating the Notification.

3. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza with learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza for respondent-original complainant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta for respondent-State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza submitted that the breach of the notification could only be considered, when the production operation was under progress, when actually there was no working of manufacturing resins in the plant.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza submitted that the complaint was filed on the basis of the inspection report dated 22.08.2012 and 07.11.2012. As such, only report dated 22.08.2012 was produced at Exh.48 and other report dated 07.11.2012 was neither exhibited nor produced by the complainant while both the reports specifically indicate that the plant was closed because of power staggering.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza submitted that the public notice had been issued by the GPCB on 07.12.2012 under the sign