Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sant Parkash, J.
Dipti Jain & Anr. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Haryana State Pollution Control Board – Respondent
CRM-M-9959 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Water and Air Pollution - Water Act, 1974, AIR Act, 1981 - Section 24, 25, 43, 44, 21, 37, 40 - The judgment discusses the violation of the Water Act and AIR Act by a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and trading. The court examines the liability of the partners for the alleged violations and the procedural irregularities in the inspection reports and summoning order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, partners of a firm, sought quashing of a criminal complaint for violation of Water Act and AIR Act. The complaint alleged discharge of trade effluent and establishment of a unit without necessary consents. The petitioners argued that they were not directly responsible for the violations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not specify the roles of the accused and the trial court failed to consider the necessary ingredients for prosecution. It noted procedural irregularities in inspection reports and concluded that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind before taking cognizance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of partners for violations of the Water Act and AIR Act, adequacy of the complaint in specifying the roles of the accused, and procedural irregularities in inspection reports and summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that liability under criminal law arises from the conduct, act, or omission of the person and not merely from the office held. It emphasized the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to prosecute the accused. The court also highlighted the procedural irregularities in inspection reports and the trial court's failure to apply its judicial mind.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the complaint and summoning order, and closed any pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Sant Parkash, J. - This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned two petitions as they arise out of the same complaint and involve similar questions of facts and law.
2. Both the petitions have been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal Complaint No.24/2019 dated 11.07.2019 filed under Section 43/ 44 for violation of Section 24/25 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'Water Act') and Sections 37 for violation of Section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, 'AIR Act'), pending before the Court of Sh.Pracheta Singh, Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra and also for quashing summoning order dated 06.02.2020 qua the petitioners.
3. Brief facts leading to the present case are that a partnership Firm M/s Vardhman Spinners (hereinafter referred to as, 'Firm') was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of all types of yarns, blankets, loyee, shawls etc. Earlier four partners namely Ajay Jain, Anand Kumar Jain, Raman Jain and Rahul Jain were the partners and later on, three partners except Ajay Kumar Jain left the Firm and in their place, petitioners along with Hemant Jain entered into the above mentioned Firm on 01.04.2011, being partners in place of its earlier partners. Copies of partnership deeds dated 04.05.2009 and 01.04.2011 are annexed with the file as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. A unit of the said Firm was established at Barsat Road, Bhainswal, Panipat in 2009 and a show cause notice dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the Firm by Regional Officer, Panipat Region, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board') with the alleged substantive fact that the said unit of the Firm was visited by the officer of respondent on 19.03.2018 and the said unit was found discharging trade effluent directly on open land and the unit was also found to have established and operated without obtaining prior Consent to Establish (hereinafter referred to as, 'CTE') and Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as, 'CTO'). In response thereto, a reply dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure P-6) was submitted on behalf of the Firm with the submission that no effluent as well as water had been discharged from the said unit run by the Firm. Another show cause notice dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure P-7) was issued by Regional Officer, Panipat Region of the respondent Board, alleging therein that the site was inspected by the Field Officer on 14.08.2018 along with complainant and unit was found engaged in discharge of untreated effluent and no CTE and CTO had been obtained by the unit. Thereafter, the said unit of the Firm was visited by an officer of the Board, who apprised that a complaint had been received against the unit of the Firm and the officer needed signature of any representative of the Firm, in order to send the reply to the complaint against the Firm. Pursuant to that, signatures of Ajay Kumar Jain, one of the partners of the Firm were obtained on some blank proformas on the pretext of mere formality for the inspection. Thereafter, an order of closure dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-8) was passed, pursuant to which, the said unit of the Firm was sealed on 19.09.2018 (Annexure P-9) and the impugned complaint dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) was filed against the petitioners, wherein the trial court took cognizance on 06.02.2020 against the petitioners and issued the summoning order dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby all the said accused persons have been summoned to face trial under Sections 24 and 25 read with Sections 43 and 44 of Water Act and under Section 21 read with 37 of the AIR Act.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, Dipti jain and Shashi Jain, can not be held responsible for the alleged violation as mentioned in the impugned complaint as they have no concern with the day to day affairs/activities of the unit of the Firm. In the
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....
The court ruled that a complaint for discharging trade effluent is invalid without proper sampling processes and that evidence must be assessed at trial for factual determinations.
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.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
