The prosecution must prove legally enforceable standards and show compliance with evidential procedures to establish charges under environmental regulations.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The appellant Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order dated 25.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in Criminal Complaint No. 5/1992, whereby the respondents–accused M/s Banshidhar Rameshwar Das & Company, its partners Champa Lal and Shyam Lal were acquitted of the offences alleged under Sections 24 , 25 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter “the Act”). The trial court recorded acquittal by granting benefit of doubt.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present and ready to argue the matter. However, none appears on behalf of the respondents. In these circumstances, Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the respondents under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the trial court, was that the accused firm, engaged in dyeing and printing activities at Ramdev Road, Pali, was discharging approximately 10,000 litres of untreated trade effluent per day into municipal drains ultimately joining the Bandi river. It was alleged that on 24.03.1979, PW-2 Madan Mohan Goel, Assistant Engineer of the Board, conducted an inspection after serving notice under the Rules and collected samples from the final outlet. The samples, sealed at site in the presence of the occupier, were forwarded to the Board laboratory at Jaipur and were analysed vide report Ex. P-8, which according to the Board revealed violations of the prescribed standards under IS-2490. Earlier, the accused firm had obtained consent under Sections 25 /26 of the Act which, as per the Board, stood valid only till 31.12.1978. It was alleged that the accused continued to discharge effluent without renewal of consent, thereby attracting penal liability.

4. During trial, one of the partners, Rameshwar Das, expired on 13.10.1993 and proceedings against him abated. The learned Magistrate relied mainly on the testimony of PW-2 but found significant lacunae in sampling procedures, non-production of key witnesses, absence of proof regarding compliance of sampling rules, and non-establishment of chain of custody. Accordingly, acquittal was recorded.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse. It was urged that the learned Magistrate erred in discarding the testimony of PW-1 K.L. Goel, Member-Secretary of the Board, merely because cross- examination could not be completed owing to his death. Reliance was placed on Section 33 of the Evidence Act, permitting use of such testimony recorded in judicial proceedings. Learend counsel further submitted that the Magistrate wrongly drew adverse inference for non-examination of Ashok Gupta (J.En.) and Laxmikant (Manager), although PW-2 had categorically stated that he alone performed the acts of serving notice, collecting samples, sealing containers, preparing inspection notes and dispatching samples. It was argued that producing more witnesses to prove the same fact was unnecessary and that the quality of evidence, not quantity, is material.

6. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court erroneously h