SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11520

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
KSHETRIYA ADHIKARI – Appellant
Versus
MS. SHARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD. – Respondent
CRMP/991/2021



Advocates:
Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

In a warrant trial, failure to present evidence before framing charges justifies the discharge of the accused, emphasizing the complainant's burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200 and 378(4) - Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15/16 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 21, 37/40 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 44/47 - Discharge of accused in complaint case - The trial court discharged the respondents due to the complainant's failure to present witnesses to establish the charges before framing them - The complainant alleged that the respondents constructed a coal washery without necessary environmental clearance - The court emphasized the complainant's burden to provide evidence before charges are framed. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 14)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The court reiterated that in a warrant trial, the complainant must produce evidence for the charges to be framed, and failure to do so justifies the discharge of the accused. (Paras 5, 13)

(C) Judicial discretion - The court held that the learned Magistrate acted within their discretion to discharge the accused based on the lack of evidence. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents for constructing a coal washery without obtaining necessary environmental clearances. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the complainant's failure to present evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the complainant did not fulfill the obligation to present witnesses to support the charges.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in discharging the respondents for lack of evidence presented by the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the complainant's failure to produce witnesses justified the trial court's decision to discharge the accused, emphasizing the importance of the right to cross-examine witnesses in warrant trials.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

By way of the present petition under Section 378(4) of CrPC, the Petitioner/complaint being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (CG) in Complaint Case No 1525/2009 whereby the learned trial court has discharged the accused/respondents on the ground that the applicant/complaint had failed to discharge their burden to prove by not examining any of their witnesses in relation to the inspection report before framing of the charges.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed complaint case against the respondents under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code of 1973”) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh vide Complaint Case No. 1525/2009. It is alleged that on 26.10.2009, while inspecting the respondents’ industry, it was found that the construction work of coal washery-0.96 million tonnes per annum proposed by the respondents was underway as foundation and steel work was found to be done for setting up Coal Washery at the site. Some structures were fabricated for making columns and brackets were lying at the site. Apart from this, 3 steel columns have been installed on the foundation at the site. The said establishment of coal washery plant was being done without obtaining the Environment Clearance from the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 1994 (Amendment) dated 14.09.2006 issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 .

3.It is alleged that without the prior permission of the State Board, establishment of any industrial plant or carrying of production work in any air pollution control area without obtaining the Environmental Clearance by the respondents from the Government of India is a violation of law under Sections 21 and 25/26 of the Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act,1981 and Water pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974. The Act of the respondent/Industry is punishable under Section 37/40 of the the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 , u/s. 44/47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Control Act, 1974 and u/s. 15/16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of inspection, complaint was filed against the respondents on 17.11.2009. After taking cognizance of the complaint by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh summons were issued to the respondents under Section 204(1)(A) of the Code,1973. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for framing of charges who, in turn, has passed the order dated 24.02.2021 dismissing the complaint case filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C and discharged the respondents of the alleged offences. It is against this order the petitioner/complainant is before this Court.

4.Contention of Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has discharged the respondents on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had failed to discharge the burden to prove by not examining any of their witnesses in relation to the inspection report before framing of the charges. He further contends that the learned JMFC has failed to appreciate the fact that the Spot Inspection Report dated 26.10.2009 was issued by the Sub Engineer and Scientist employed under the Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board enumerating the commencement of work of establishment of a Coal Washery Plant, with a capacity of 0.96 million tonnes per year in the premises of respondents without obtaining Environment Clearance and Consent to Establish/operate from a public officer/servant of Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Broad constituted in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top