IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
M/s Standard Mercantile Company (Mining Division) Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Another - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 1320, 103 of 2016
Decided On : 22-11-2023
Environment Protection Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 43 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Section 49 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Fact of the Case:
The petitions sought quashing of criminal proceedings related to violations of environmental protection acts. The complaints were filed by a regional officer of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board against a company and its officials for operating without environmental clearances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cognizance taken against the company was not valid as it could not be enforced, and only a penalty could be imposed. It also noted that the complaints were not filed by an authorized person as required by the relevant acts.
Issues: Validity of cognizance taken against the company, authorization for filing complaints under environmental protection acts.
Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance can only be taken on a complaint made by the Central Government or an authorized person. The complaints in this case were not filed by an authorized person as required by the acts.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceedings, as the cognizance taken against the company was not valid and the complaints were not filed by an authorized person as required by the acts.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Vishwanath Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
2. In all these two petitions, a common question of law is involved and that is why both these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.
3. In Cr.M.P. No.1320 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 07.01.2015 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with O.C.R. No.02 of 2015, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal.
4. In Cr.M.P. No.103 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.04.2014 arising out of O.C.R. No.57 of 2014, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal.
5. In O.C.R. No.2 of 2015 which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P.No.1320 of 2016 the prosecution case arises out of a written complaint lodged by the Opposite Party No.2 on 7.1.2015 in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj on the following allegations-
(b) Sri Dilip Agarwal, the Managing Director of M/s. Standard Mercantile Co. (Processing Division) Pvt. Ltd. (wrongly recorded as 'Processing Division' instead of 'Mining Division), is having an area of 69.73 Hectares in Mouza - Ray Bazar, P.S.-Rajmahal, District Sahebganj.
(c) Vide letter no. R-38 dated 4.3.2010 the unit of the petitioner was directed to stop production and also by another letter no. 3002 dated 27.12.2014, the accused was directed to immediately stop processing of China Clay and Silica Sand operated by him as well as disposal of solid and liquid waste into the River Ganga and its bed but the accused in spite of closing the said unit continued operation of the plant.
(d) The Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 vide letter no. B-42 dated 2.1.2015 has been authorised by the competent authority to file complaint under the provision of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and therefore, he is competent to do so.
(e) The Accused-Company and their officials named in the complaint have/has committed offence under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for which they are liable to be prosecuted and punished.
6. In O.C.R. No.57 of 2014 which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P.No.103 of 2016 the prosecution case arises out of a written complaint lodged by the Opposite Party No.2 on 15.4.2014 in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj on the following allegations -
(b) Sri Dilip Agarwal, (petitioner herein), the lessee of M/s. Standard Mercantile Co. (Mining Division) Pvt. Ltd., is having an area of 65.197 Hectares in Mouza - Ray Bazar, P.S. - Rajmahal, District - Sahebganj.
(c) Vide letter contained in memo no. 1240 dated 28.9.2004 the Dy. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand has informed that mining lease was in operation during the period 7.10.1994 to 6.1.2014 without environmental clearance, which is a violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
(d) By a letter no. J-11015/2010/2013-IA.II(M) dated 6.2.2014 and J-11015/438/2012-IA.II(M) dated 12.4.2013, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi (MoEF) address
Standard Chartered Bank and Others v. Directorate of Enforcement and Others
National Small Scale Industries Corporatino v. Harmeet Singh Pental
Cognizance of environmental protection act offenses can only be taken on a complaint made by the Central Government or an authorized person, as required by the relevant acts.
Section 43 of AIR Act requires that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint filed by the Board or any officer authorised in that behalf.
The decision to prosecute for contravening the provisions of the Act is the power of the State Board alone, and the non-production of the resolution and/or decision of the Board to prosecute the resp....
The complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act can be filed by authorized officers of the State Pollution Control Board, and the absence of explicit authorization resolution does not invalidate....
The Magistrate's satisfaction based on documentary evidence is sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence, and the complaint need not specifically mention all offences made out by the facts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prosecution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 may be considered an abuse of process of law if environmental clearance is granted af....
Criminal proceedings initiated without required chairman approval render the complaint a nullity, thereby precluding judicial cognizance under the Air Act.
The liability under criminal law arises from the conduct, act, or omission of the person and not merely from the office held. Specific averments in the complaint are necessary to prosecute the accuse....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.