##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14286 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2577 of 2019

Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer Regional Office, 5/32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District :

Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

versus

1 - M/s Amlidih Quartz Mine Mining Lease Area- 5.852 Hectare Quartz Mine Unit, Part Of Khasra No. 958, P.H.N. 93/32, Village Amlidih, P.O. Amlidih, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2 - Deepchandra Nahar, Proprietor S/o Chunnilal Nahar, M/s Amlidih Quartz Digitally RAJSHEKHARsigned by Mine (5.852 Hectare) R/o J.K. Villa, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District Durg SONI RAJSHEKHAR SONI

Chhattisgarh Pin 491001, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

25.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) with following

prayer:

“i) quash/set aside the order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and/or thereby

allowing the revision.

ii) or any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious.”

2

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a statutory body

which has a responsibility to ensure the necessary compliance of the mandates provided under the various Environment Protection Laws. The respondents are engaged in mining of Quartz at village Amlidih at Tahsil Dongargarh and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Upon inspection of the concerned premise, it reveled to the authorities that, the respondent concerned is running without the necessary authorization and permission required under section 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and section 37 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. It was also found that, the lease granted to it by the Collector had ended way back on 28.01.2007. Upon this and other discrepancies, the petitioner authority preferred a complaint against the respondents for necessary action and punishment prescribed under the Environment Protection Act for violation of its section 15 and 16. The unregistered complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.02.2018. Against the said order, an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C was preferred before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2018. There against a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2019, by the Learned Sessions Judge, holding the same to be barred by limitation. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of

the revisional court is baseless, irrational and unwarranted and deserves to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted that the learned revisional court has erred in not appreciating the fact that prima facie case is made out against the respondent and there was

3

ample grounds satisfying the requirements of Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court ought to have appreciated that it was under a bonafide legal misreading that the appeal was preferred. The petitioner most diligently was back pursuing the Complaint by bringing in a revision. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the complaint involved a serious issue of environment which affected public at large and hence consideration while dismissing the revision

had to be made. Hence, the impugned orders is liable to be set aside

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

materials available on record.

6. It transpires from the records that the proceedings have arisen out of a

compla