Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT................................................................3

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT...........................................................8

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............................................................................11

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................22

INTRODUCTION

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Surat (“Ld. Appellate Court”) on 30.03.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2003 (“Impugned Order”)

2. Originally, the Appellant had filed Criminal Complaint against the Respondent No. 2 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat being Criminal Case No. 3642 of 1987 for violation of Sections 24 and 25 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (“Water Act”) which was punishable under Sections 43 and 44 read with Section 47 of the Water Act.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (“Ld. Trial Court”) by Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2003, convicted the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for one year and six months and also imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/- upon each of the accused for breach of Sections 23 and 24 of the Water Act.

4. By way of the Impugned Order, the Ld. Appellate Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) challenging the order of sentence and fine imposed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No. 3642 of 1987.

5. Hence the present Appeal by the Appellant challenging the Impugned Order.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

7. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has principally contended that the Ld. Appellate Court has not properly considered the legal position arising from Section 49 of the Water Act read in conjunction with Section 11A of the Water Act. It is submitted that the statutory scheme empowers the Pollution Control Board to accord sanction for prosecution under the Water Act. In the present case, such sanction was granted by the Chairman of the Board pursuant to the resolution dated 27.11.1984, and the sanction order issued on that basis is fully in conformity with the requirements of Section 49 read with Section 11A of the Water Act.

8. It was also argued that on a careful examination of the entire matter, it transpires that the Complaint [Exhibit 1] specifically states that the Accused has committed offence which contravenes the provisions of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Water Act and such an offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months, which may extend to six years and with fine.

9. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Complaint in the present case is dated 21.12.1987. It is an admitted position that, by way of a sanction Order, the Deputy Environment Engineer of the Regional Office at Surat was authorised to file the necessary Complaint and to make an appropriate Application before the Court. The said sanction Order has been produced on record at Exh.17.

10. It has been further submitted that the Respondents had filed an Application seeking consent under the Water Act for discharge of effluents. The said consent was initially granted on 31.01.1986. However, the same was thereafter rejected by the Appellant on 18.03.1986. The rejection was on the ground that the Respondents had created an outlet without obtaining prior consent of the Appellant. The said fact was communicated to the Respondents through Registered Post A.D., and the acknowledgment thereof has been produced on record at Exh.19.

11. Ld. Advocate has further pointed out that the Appellant had issued a notice of entry and inspection dated 01.08.1986, which is