Procedural noncompliance in pollution regulation cases undermines the prosecution's ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the CrPC has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.32/1994 whereby the learned appellate court reversed the judgment dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in Criminal Original Case No.64/1992, whereby the learned trial court had convicted and sentenced the respondents for the offences under Sections 24 read with Section 43 and Section 25 read with Section 44 of the Water Pollution Act. The learned appellate court acquitted the respondents from the above offences.

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. Brief facts of the case, are that a complaint was filed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board against the respondents, namely K.H. Fabrics and associated individuals, under Sections 24 , 25, 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The complaint alleged that the industry located on Sumerpur Road, engaged in dyeing and printing operations, was discharging approximately 45,000 liters of untreated industrial effluent into municipal drains, which ultimately flowed into the Mandi River. The industry had obtained consent to operate until 31.12.1978. Despite the expiry of this consent, it was alleged that the respondents continued to discharge effluent in violation of the prescribed standards and without implementing any pollution control measures.

4. On 22.03.1979, an inspection of the premises was conducted by Mr. Madan Mohan Goyal, Assistant Engineer of the Board, who collected samples of the effluent. The samples were sent for laboratory analysis. Based on these findings and after obtaining the requisite approval from the Board, a formal complaint was lodged against the respondents.

5. The trial court recorded statements of witnesses and examined the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. The accused-respondents denied their involvement, contending that the factory was located outside the municipal drain network and challenging the validity of the inspection and sampling procedures. 6. Despite the defenses raised, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali, by judgment dated 15.12.1992, convicted the respondents under Sections 24 , 25 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Act. The respondents were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines. M/s. K.H. Fabrics was also penalized under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act.

7. Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pali. The learned ap