The presumption of innocence of the accused and the requirement to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

1. The present appeal filed by the Punjab State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (hereinafter referred as the appellant Board) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.11.1994, recorded in favour of the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar (for short trial Court) in complaint under Section 44 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The brief facts of the case noticed in Para 2 of the impugned judgment are being reproduced as under:--

"On 16.03.1989, Paramjit Singh Sidhu, Assistant Environmental Engineer of the complainant Board visited the premises of M/s. Charan Kamal Board & Paper Mills (Private) Limited, Tarn Taran Road, Bangrana Sahib, Amritsar and found it discharging 1040 kilo litres per day of trade effluent in Chable drain through Racha drain causing stagnation at various points along the Tarn Taran Road side and back side of the premises of the said industry. It was found that Narinder Singh was the Managing Director of the said industry and was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the said company. The accused had not obtained prior consent of the complainant Board to discharge the trade effluent into Chabal drain. As such, the accused contravened the provisions of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be called Act). Ultimately, the present complaint under Section 44 read with Section 47of the Act was filed."

2. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned under Section 44 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar.

3. Upon the accused putting in appearance in the Court, the complainant examined Pardeep Kumar as PW-1 and Paramjit Singh Sidhu, Assistant Environmental Engineer as PW-2, who stated that the accused-Company was found discharging trade effluent to the tune of 1040 kilo litres per day into the Jhabal drain through kacha drain causing stagnation on various points along with Tarn Taran road and back side of the premises and the complainant closed the evidence for the purpose of charge.

4. After hearing the Law Officer on behalf of the complainant- Board and the learned counsel for the accused, a prima facie case was held to be made out against the accused and they were accordingly charged for an offence punishable under Section 44 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on 29.01.1991, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar.

5. After framing the charge, the accused opted for further cross-examination of both the PWs. Both the PWs were produced by the complainant for further cross-examination and then the complainant closed the evidence.

6. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to which they pleaded their false implication and opted to lead defence evidence. Accused-Narinder Singh, moved an application to examine himself with the permission of the Court as defence witness. He was allowed to do so and was examined as DW-1. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence.

7. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held acquitted the accused as the complainant has failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

8. Against the acquittal, the Board has filed this appeal which was admitted on 13.11.1995.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the finding of the trial Court to the extent that sanction to prosecute the respondent has not been proved; and that it is a case of deemed sanction. He further contended that proper sanction was accorded by the Board vide resolution dated 02.06.1989 and has been duly proved.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document