K.C. Sood, J. :- This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba dated March 4, 2004 where by the application of the petitioner and his co-accused, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, taking objection to the cognizance of the alleged offences against them under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 "Water Act" for short) without the previous sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Code was kept pending with the directions that this application shall be decided after the conclusion of the trial The petitioner along with his co-accused was directed to be put the notice of accusation against him under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Background:

2. The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred to as "State Board", laid a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, through its Assistant Environmental Engineer, against the President and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Chamba under Sections 41, 43, 44, 47 and 49 of the Water Act. The State Board is a Statutory Body created under the Water Act. The allegations against the accused, the President and the Executive Officer, petitioner herein, are that they being responsible for the affairs of the Municipal Council, a local body, are liable to be prosecuted under Section 47 of the Water Act for having failed to prevent "the pollution" within the municipal limits of Chamba, i.e., Bhagat and Pacca Tala for the offences punishable under Sections 41, 43, and 44 of the Water Act.

3. The allegations against the accused petitioners are : (a) The accused are running/operating the local body without the consent of the Board under Sections 24, 25, 26 of the Water Act. (b) The accused disobeyed the directions of the Board and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 41. 43, 44 of the Water Act. (c) The local body has been provided with a sewage scheme/sewage treatment plant which is not being operated at its optimum capacity as the users have not been persuaded by them to take connection to the sewerage scheme and if the connection is not taken by the local residents, the sewage will not be treated and if left unattended, the discharge would flow some where else and will aggravate the problem of pollution;

4. The accused were summoned by the learned trial Magistrate, Chamba. Both the accused, including the petitioner herein, filed an application under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saying that in the absence of sanction of the Competent Authority under Section 197 of the Code, cognizance for the alleged offences cannot be taken against them. They specifically stated that the alleged in-action on the part of the petitioner and his co-accused, the President of the Municipal Council, was in the discharge of his public duties and therefore, the complaint was mislaid.

5. Learned trial Magistrate by impugned order, relying upon Raj Kishore Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey and another, 2002(6) Supreme Court Cases 543 took a view that question of sanction shall be decided in the judgment after the conclusion of the trial and the application was directed to be kept pending for decision after the conclusion of the trial.

6. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, Municipal Council is a creature of the statute and not a Corporation or Company within the meaning of Section 47 of the Water Act. The prosecution, submitted learned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Act is not maintainable.

7. The object of Section 197, indisputably is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and ensure that no proceeding is started against a public servant unless there are good reasons for such prosecution. To invoke Section 197, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) The accused is a public servant or was a public servant removable