The prosecution must prove statutory violations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the mere absence of permission does not automatically constitute criminal liability.

1. All the above four criminal appeals have been preferred by the State under S.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgments rendered by the then Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coiambatore in S. T. R. Nos. 48, 51, 52 and 53 of 1985 dated 30th January 1986, finding the accused / respondents herein, not guilty under S.21(2) read with S.37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and accordingly, acquitting them under S.255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. Since all the above four appeals have been preferred by the State challenging the legality and correctness of the judgments rendered by the learned trial Magistrate in different cases involving different parties, namely different respondents as accused but the complainant, the appellant herein namely, the Member - Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board being the same and the offences alleged against all the respondents herein are one under S.21 (2) read with 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and a common question of law is involved, I have proposed to dispose of the four appeals as consented to by the Bar, by rendering this common judgment.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as called out from the records of the court below and the impugned judgments are stated as follows:
The four respondents herein respectively accused in the above four cases are having and running different factories in Pollachi Main Road near Echanari Railway Gate, a sub urban place of Coimbatore town. PW 1, the Regional Officer of the appellant herein inspected the respective factories of the respondents herein during the months of June, 1984 and found that they were running the said factories and that they had not filed any application to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, for according the sanction and permission to run the factory as contemplated under the Act. According to PW 1, G.O.Ms. No. 4 Environment Control Department dated 28-9-1983 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu provides that within a period of six months from the date of publication of the same, those who are running the factory must apply to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and get the sanction and permission to run the factory and then only they are entitled to run the same. Accordingly, all the respondents herein ought to have applied to the Board on or before 31-3-1984 as their respective factories have been shown in the schedule appended to the Government Order above referred. But however, according to PW 1 none of the respondents had sent any application on or before 31-3-1984 to the Board and that therefore, all the respondents herein had violated S.21(2) of the Act which is punishable under S.37 of the Act. He would further claim that in a meeting held by the appellant Board on 19-10-1984, by passing a resolution with regard to 120 factories inclusive of the respondents herein also, the Board had permitted PW 1 to launch Criminal Prosecutions against them. The authorization given to file Criminal Prosecution have been marked as Ex. P1, Copy of G. O. Ms. No. 4 Environment Control Department dated 28-9-1993 has been marked as Ex. P2; Paper publications have been marked as Ex. P3; Copy of the Resolution of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board passed in the 10th Board Meeting held on 19-10-1984 has been marked as Ex. P4; Complaints have been marked as Ex. P5; Gazette publication has been marked as Ex. P6 in all the four cases.

4. When the respondents / accused were examined under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they have denied their complicity and pleaded not