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

(2). In these six petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, common question of law has arisen for decision. All the 6 petitions are against the orders passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra on 7th Feb- ruary, 1986 in criminal cases pending before him. Six revision petitions were filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Balotra against the orders dated 7.2.86 passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Balotra and all the six criminal revision petitions were disposed of by the learned District & Sessions Judge by a common order. It is, there- fore, proper to dispose of these petitions by a common order.

(3). Shorn of details, the relevant facts for the purpose of disposing of these petitions are as given below :

(4). Criminal Original Cases No. 270/83, 272/83, 269/83, 268/83, 271/83, and 267/83 were instituted on the basis of complaints filed on behalf of the Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, Jaipur alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 42 and 44 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short, referred to hereinafter as `the Act of 1974). The above-mentioned cases were registered as cases instituted on complaint, as cognizance of the offences was taken under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Proce- dure Code, 1973. On 7.2.86, the complainant did not appear in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate when the cases were called for hearing. The Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Balotra, on the same day, discharged the accused-persons under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 because the complainant was not present. The powers under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code were exer- cised by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Balotra because it was urged before him that the offences under Section 42 and 44 of the Act of 1974 were non- cognizable offences and, therefore, the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate on the footing that offences under Sections 42 and 44 of the Act of 1974 were non-cognisable offences passed the order under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code discharging the accused persons.

(5). The revision petitions were filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Proce- dure Code in all the six cases mentioned above. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Balotra dismissed the revision petitions as he held that the offences under Sections 42 and 44 of the Act of 1974 were non-cognisable offences. He further considered it not necessary to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate.

(6). Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Balotra and the District & Sessions Judge, Balotra, the petitioner has filed these 6 petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences under Sections 42 and 44 of the Act of 1974 is punishable with more than 2 years impri- sonment and, therefore, the cases were warrant cases, but the powers conferred by Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not have been exercised by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate for the purpose of discharging the accused persons on account of non-appearance of the complainant, as the offences of which cognizance has been taken were neither compoundable nor they were non-cogni- sable offences. He has, therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, without jurisdiction and amount to the abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

(8). Learned counsel for the non-petitioners have submitted that though the offences under Sections 42 and 44 of the Act of 1974 ``are not compundable, they are ``non-cognisable offences and, therefore, the Addl. Chief Judicia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document