A complaint against a company and its directors under Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, must specify which director was in charge of the business at the time of the alleged offence and that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of the directors.

K. C. Agarwal, J.

1. CRIMINAL Revision No. 2330 of 1983 has been filed by the three applicants challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad issuing the process to these three persons and eight others against whom a complaint under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by U. P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow. This Board [has been constituted by a notification of the Government of U. P. dated 3rd February, 1975, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section of Section 4 of the Act. Subsequently, the Board constituted under the Act was given the name as U. P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), vide notification No. 2179/92-100-74, dated 13th July, 1982.

2. THE Act had been enacted by the Parliament to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water for the establishment with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith. This Act was passed in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution under which a large number of States, includiing U. P., had authorised the Union Parliament to pass an Act for regulating matters aforesaid.

On 21st October, 1983, the Board filed a complaint under Section 44 of the Act against eleven persons on the allegation that M/s. Modi Distillery, Modinagar, district Ghaziabad, which was a company within the meaning of Section 47 of the Act, had been discharging knowingly its noxious and polluting matter (effluents) into the stream Kail river through Kadrabad drain, which is a stream as defined in sub-section (j) of Section 2 of the Act and thereby causing continuous pollution of the said stream. The allegations made were that M/s. Modi Distillery, Modinagar, having not obtained the consent by applying under Section 25 of the Board for bringing into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of its trade effluent into the stream, committed contravention of the said section. The further allegation was about the breach of Section 26 of the Act by not obtaining the consent for discharging its trade effluent into (the stream. The Board alleged that M/s. Modi Distillery was informed about the need of obtaining such a consent through letters, but the said company did not apply for the consent under Sections 25 (1) and 26 of the Act and it violated these provisions, on account of which it was liable to be punished under Section 47 of the Act.

3. SRI S. N. Pandey, who was the Legal Assistant of the Board, gave his statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After recording the statement of S. N. Pandey, Legal Assistant of the Board, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, directed for the issue of the process to the accused impleaded in the complaint as opposite parties nos.1 to 11. Against the issuance of the process, K. N. Modi, Chairman, Modi Industries Ltd, Modinagar, K. K. Modi, Vice Chairman, Modi Industries Ltd. Modinagar, and M. L. Modi, Managing Director, Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar, have filed the aforesaid revision and prayed for quashing of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 3-11-1983. The connected Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10187 of 1983 has been preferred under Section 482 CrPC for the relief of quashing the proceedings taken by the Board. This petition has been preferred by two of the Directors of M/s. Modi Distillery, Modinagar, who have been described as (1) S. C. Tirkha, Director, New Delhi, and (2) Shri Raghunath Rai, Director, for Chartered Accountants, New Delhi in the complaint filed under Section 44 by the Board.

4. THE main submission of the applicant's counsel in the aforesaid two cases is the same, hence they are being dis