http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MODI DISTILLERY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1987

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 1128 1987 SCR (3) 798

1987 SCC (3) 684 JT 1987 (3) 221

1987 SCALE (2)208

ACT:

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:

Ss. 25, 26, 44 & 47--Company--Discharge of trade effluents

without consent of the Board--Commission of offence under

the Act--Officials of the Company whether guilty of

offence----Vicarious responsibility.

Practice and Procedure: Prevention and Control of Pollu-

tion-Launching of prosecution--Need for drafting complaints

with circumspection and without any technical flaw.

HEADNOTE:

The respondent-distillery, an industrial unit of M/s.

Modi Industries Ltd., at Modi Nagar manufacturing industrial

alcohol has been discharging its highly noxious and polluted

trade effluents into the river through a local drain. It

applied to the Pollution Control Board under ss. 25(1) and

26 of the Act on March 27, 1981 for consent of the Board to

discharge its trade effluents into the stream. The Board

found the application incomplete in many respects, and

called upon the respondents to rectify the discrepancies. As

there was no response from the respondents, the appellant

Board refused to grant the consent prayed for in the public

interest and thereafter issued notice under s. 20 of the Act

directing the Company to furnish certain information regard-

ing the particulars and names of the Managing Director,

Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of

the Company. This was followed by various reminders.

Finding no response from the respondents, the Board on

October 21, 1983 lodged a complaint against the respondents

under s. 44 of the Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gaziabad. Instead of launching a prosecution

against M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., the Board impleaded the

industrial unit as respondent No. 1 and the Chairman. Vice-

Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of

Directors of the Company as respondent Nos. 2 to 11. The

Judicial Magistrate directed the issue of process.

799

The respondents preferred a revision under s. 397 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court in

which an application was filed under s. 482 of the Code for

quashing the proceedings. The Single Judge of the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

quashed the proceedings on the ground that there could be no

vicarious liability saddled on the Chairman, Vice-Chairman,

Managing Director and other members of the Board of Direc-

tors of the Company under s. 47 of the Act unless there was

a prosecution of the Company.

Allowing the appeal,

HELD: A combined reading of the provisions contained in

subss. (1) and (2) of s. 47 of the Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 makes it apparent that the

officials of the Company owning the respondent industrial

unit could be prosecuted as having been in charge of and

responsible to the Company for the business of that unit and

could be deemed to be guilty of the offence with which they

were charged. [804DE]

The industrial unit owned by the Company was discharging

its trade effluents into the river prior to the commencement

of the Act. It was, therefore, mandatory for the Company to

make an application to the Board under s. 25(2) read with s.

26 of the Act for grant of consent for the discharge of its

trade effluents into the stream. The application made by the

industrial unit having been found incomplete in many re-

spects was rejected by the Board in public interest. There-

after the Company which did not have proper arrangements for

treatment of the highly polluted trade effluents discharged

by it, had b