The legal position established was that when the Board itself is the complainant, any officer of the Board may be nominated by the secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Board and such nomination by the Secretary or assistant Secretary would not amount to sub-delegation of power. It is also clear that when the Board itself is the complainant, no specific authorization or resolution of the board authorizing a particular person to file the complaint is necessary.

A. K. PARICHHA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Kalinga Carbonates Ltd. , situated at Chandaka Nucleus Industrial complex, Sector-B, Patia, Bhubaneswar in the District of Khurda. He was prosecuted under Section 37{1) of Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act in short, for operating the industrial unit without obtaining prior consent and clearance of the Orissa state Prevention and Control of Pollution board, in short, 'board.

( 2 ) DURING the course of trial, the petitioner filed a petition on 17-7-1997 praying the Court to direct the complainant (present opposite party) to cause production of the documents of the XXVII meeting of the Board held on 31 -10-1990 for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Opposite party filed objection indicating that such document cannot be made available as disclosure of some of the reports and resolutions will be against public interest and that the documents called for by the petitioner is not at all relevant for the case. Learned S. D. J. M. Bhubaneswar after hearing the parties, by order dated 21-9-1998 rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present CRLMC under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order of the learned s. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar.

( 3 ) MR. P. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has suppressed the truth by not disclosing as to against whom sanction order has been passed by the Board meeting held on 31-10-1990 and as to who was authorised by the Board to file the prosecution, so the documents of the 27th meeting of the Board held on 31-10-1990 should be called for proper and effective adjudication of the case. According to him, without proper sanction and authorisation of the Board, the complaint lodged by the Assistant Law Officer of the Board is not maintainable. He submits that the learned S. D. J. M. , bhubaneswar failed to appreciate these points and passed a wrong order.

( 4 ) MR. S. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Board, on the other hand, submits that when the Board itself has filed a complaint, no sanction or authorisation is necessary and so, the documents relating to the meeting of the Board dated 31-10-1990 are not at all relevant.

( 5 ) FROM the rival submissions of the respective parties, the point which emerges for consideration is whether sanction and authorisation of the Board were necessary for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and whether the documents of 27th meeting of the Board are required for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

( 6 ) SECTION 49, sub-section (1) of the Act reads thus :"49. Cognizance of offences (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by - (a) A Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid. and no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. "from the aforesaid provision of the Act, it is clear that the Board itself or any officer authorised on its behalf can launch the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Assistant Law Officer of the Board has filed the complaint in the present case and therefore, the authorisation of the Board in his favour is necessary and if such authorisation is not produced, then prosecution will be illegal and not maintainable. As against this, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party submits that in the present case, the Board itself has filed the complaint and so no specific authorisation or resolution of the Board was necessary. According to him, the Board being