The amendment in section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 could not be enforced retrospectively, and compliance with conditions after the judgment of acquittal led to the dismissal of the complaint.

S.D.Bajaj, J.

1. The Punjab State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution through its member Secretary filed against M/s Kapurthala Northern India Tanneries Ltd. as also its Managing Director and Executive Manager both allegedly responsible for the conduct of its business, criminal complaint No. 21-C on 10th March, 1981 under sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for not obeying the conditions imposed on respondent No. 1 while granting consent to the discharge of its trade affluent through an outlet on the road side. The relevant conditions read :

"1. A treatment plant should be put up and various pollutants of trade affluent, viz. BCD, Dissolved Solids, Oil and Grease be brought down within the tolerance limits as per IS : 3307-1965 laid down by the Board within a period of six months from the date of the issuance of this consent.

2. The affluent after treatment should be disposed of on land for irrigation."

It has been asserted in the complaint that non-observance of the two conditions aforesaid constitutes violation of sections 25 and 6 of the Act ibid.

2 In its impugned judgment dated 12th December, 1981 learned trial court held that the amendment in section 25 of the Act necessitating the obtaining of consent from the Board for discharge of trade affluent of respondent No. 1 was made through section 12 of Amending Act No. 44 of 1978 on 13th December, 1978. On 22nd March, 1978 i.e. before 13th December, 1978-the date of amendment, neither any consent of the pollution Board was required to be obtained nor could the Board impose any conditions while giving it. Alleged breach being of the conditions imposed without jurisdiction and the authority of law, Pollution Board had no right to impose or enforce the conditions aforesaid.

3. Discussing in detail the steps taken by the respondents to obey the conditions imposed upon them by the Board, learned trial court felt satisfied of their bona fides in this regard and held that the needful could not be done because the respondents could not get cement to raise the required construction. Complaint filed by the Board was thus dismissed and all the three accused were acquitted.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12th December, 1981 the Board has filed Criminal Appeal No. 101-DBA of 1982 in this Court.

5. We have heard Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, Advocate with Shri Neeraj lain and Miss Nidhi Gupta, Advocates, for the Board, Shri S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate. with Shri R. K. Handa. Advocate, for the three respondents and have carefully scrutinized the relevant record.

6. There cannot be any dispute with the legal proposition that amendment made in section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on 13th December, 1978 could not be enforced by the Board against the respondents retrospectively with effect from 22nd March. 1978 when the two conditions allegedly violated wore imposed on the respondents. Furthermore, what is more important is that even the two conditions have since been meticulously complied with by the respondents after 12th December, 1981; when the learned trial court delivered the judgment of acquittal. In this view of the matter there is obviously no ground to tinker with the judgment of acquittal. Findings recorded by the learned trial court are affirmed and the appeal filed by the Board is dismissed.