The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the complaints initiated under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the delegation of power under Section 49, including the validity of the sanction for prosecution granted by the Chairman of the State Board.

In these petitions filed under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure the common petitioners have challenged and sought to quash the complaints and proceedings in C.C. Nos. 142/90 and 220/92 of the Judicial First class Magistrate Court, Kochi taken at the instance of the first respondent, C.C. No. 142/90 has been laid under Section 44, read with Sections 47 and 49, of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short the Act) and the other case for the alleged violation of Section 41(2). Before initiation of the proceedings, the first respondent made an application, C.M.P. No. 1558/90 under Section 33, of the Act and by order dt. 25-5-1990 the Magistrate directed the Managing director who is the 1st petitioner in Crl. M.C. 763/92 and the second petitioner in the other to desist forthwith from discharging the spent wash and waste got from the fermentation of jaggery into backwaters of Kochi." Allegedly there was flagrant breach of the direction that led to the complaints in the two cases in the course of which M.P. No. 460 and 461/92 were filed by the Managing Director for a preliminary adjudication of the maintainability of the complaints as according to him, they were not laid according to law, and the proceedings were also otherwise vitiated. By a common detailed order the petitions were dismissed whose correctness is also assailed here.

2. Heard.

3. Pandan Krishnan is the Managing Director of Indo Scottish Brand Private Limited which owns a distillery (They will be hereinafter referred to as the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner). About 1000 litres of spirit are produced each day in the factory from three tons of jaggery. The factory started production as early as in 1984 and it has been allegedly discharging untreated effluents directly into the backwaters of Kochi in violation of Sec. 25 and 26 of the Act punishable under Section 44, read with Sections 47 and 49. The factory was inspected on 28-1-1989 and it was alleged that necessary directions were given to apply and obtain the consent of the Board. Since nothing had been done, the factory was once again inspected on 19-5-1989 and a sample of the effluent was collected, analysed when it was found that it was highly polluted. Thereupon notice was issued on 27-5-1989, in response to which the last petitioner submitted that he had taken necessary steps to obtain the permission of the Board. But then no follow up action was taken by him and again the factory was inspected on 11-8-1989 as also on 20-9-1989, on which date again a sample of the effluent was collected and got analysed and the results confirmed that it was highly contaminated. A copy of the analyst's report was sent to the petitioners, who did not submit a proper or satisfactory explanation. The company has been discharging contaminated effluents unauthorisedly and it is a continuing offence. Indeed, in the course of the proceedings here, the factory was again inspected as directed by this Court and a report was submitted by the Senior Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, where he has stated, that the distillery is functioning and it is discharging untreated toxic effluents into the Cochin backwaters.

4. As stated already, even before the initiation of the present proceedings before the Court below the first respondent made an application under Section 33, of the Act, which was allowed by Annexure-B order dated 25-5-1990. The two complaints were only filed thereafter following non compliance of the directions in that order. It could hardly be believed that petitioners were unaware of the action taken by the Board, or what it could be expected to do to prevent the discharge of untreated effluents and make them alive by the provisions in the Act which seem to have been grossly violated. The factory had been inspected and samples of untreated effluents discharged into the backwaters had been collected, analysed more than once and they were found highly