Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners.

(2). This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 29.6.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali-Marwar in Criminal Complaint No.980/79. By this order dated 29.6.1989 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali discharged the accused non-petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 49, 53 and 21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (referred to hereinafter as the Act of 1974) and purporting to act under Section 33 of the Act of 1974 directed that the non-petitioner No.1 shall conduct its functions in such a manner so as not to pollute against law.

(3). The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be described as below :–

On 7.8.1979 Shri Nawal Kishore Vyas, Advocate counsel for Rajasthan Rajya Jal Pradushan Niwaran Evam Niyantran Mandal submitted a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on behalf of the petitioner and against the non-petitioners alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 read with Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Act No.6 of 1974. According to the complaint, the non-petitioner No.1, namely, M/s Man Processors is an industrial unit carrying on dying and bleaching of textiles within the

Municipal limits of Pali since 1972 and 26,000 ltrs. of industrial waste which is produced by the said industrial unit every day is poured in the Baandi river through the Nalis constructed by the Municipal Council. The non-petitioner No.1 had filed an application under Section 26 of the Act of 1974 for the purpose of obtaining consent for disposal of industrial waste. The application was filed on 19.8.1976 whereas the application should have been filed within 3 months of the constitution of the Board under the Act of 1974. It was alleged in the complaint that the non-petitioner No.1 disposed of its industrial waste without permission from 7.2.1975 to 12.11.1976 and thereby violated the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1974. It was further alleged in the complaint that the disposal of industrial waste by pouring the same in the river or a well could not be done by the non- petitioner No.1 without the permission of the Board and since the non-petitioner No.1 did not obtain the prior permission of the Board there was violation of Section 25 of the Act of 1974. Regarding the permission to be given by the Board under the Act of 1974 it was alleged in the complaint that on 12.11.1976 the Board granted permission to the non-petitioner No.1 for the period ending in May,1977 and according to the terms and conditions laid down in the permission granted by the Board the quantity of industrial waste which could be disposed of by the non-petitioner No.1 shall not exceed 10,000 ltrs. a day and the manner of disposal was to conform to I.S.2490 Part I of 1974 which was adopted by the Board and the non-petitioner No.1 was further required to submit its designs to the Board. In addition to the above mentioned special conditions the general conditions were also required to be complied with and it was alleged that since the non-petitioner No.1 disposed of the industrial waste without permission, there was violation of Section 24 of the Act of 1974. It was also alleged that on 22.3.1979 the premises of the non-petitioner No.1 were inspected by Shri A.K.Rohtaki, who was authorised by the Board to inspect and Shri Rohtaki found that the non-petitioner No.1 had no treatment plant and 26000 ltrs. of industrial waste was being disposed of by pouring the same in the Baandi river without prior treatment. It was further stated that the Board had granted permission to file complaint vide decision taken in the meeting dated 26.5.1979 and the Member Secretary of the Board was authorised by the decision taken in the meeting dated 18.4.1979 to file a complaint on behalf of the Boa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document