O R D E R

The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 to 5 in a prosecution under the provisions of 'The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is alleged that they are directors of a company. The crux of the allegation is that the said company had committed offence of water pollution punishable under the Act in the locality in which it is working. The petitioners have come before this court with a prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioner has identified five specific reasons on the basis of which he claims quashing of proceedings. First of all, it is contended that no notice under Section 49 of the Act has been issued to the Pollution Control Board by the first respondent/ complainant before launching this prosecution. After discussions at the bar, this point is not seriously pressed. It is evident that this contention is not available to the petitioners in as much as there is specific averment in the complaint and Ext.P1 document Crl.M.C.No.1087/07 2 marked in the course of the sworn statement of