1987 (8) TMI 449 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, and Board of Directors u/s 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
2. Validity of the complaint filed by the appellant.
3. Technical flaws in the complaint and their impact on the prosecution.

Summary:

1. Liability of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, and Board of Directors u/s 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
The primary issue was whether the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, and members of the Board of Directors of Messrs Modi Industries Limited could be prosecuted under s. 47 of the Act without prosecuting the Company itself. The Court held that under s. 47(1), every person responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty of the offence. The proviso to s. 47(1) shifts the burden on the delinquent officer to prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it. Sub-s. (2) further provides that if the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer, they shall also be deemed guilty. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, and members of the Board of Directors could be prosecuted for the offence.

2. Validity of the complaint filed by the appellant:
The complaint was filed by the appellant under s. 44 of the Act for the contravention of ss. 25(1) and 26. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that there could be no vicarious liability under s. 47 unless there was a prosecution of the Company. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the technical flaw in the complaint was due to the failure of the industrial unit to furnish the requisite information. The Court held that the flaw could be easily remedied by amending the complaint to include Messrs Modi Industries Limited as the accused.

3. Technical flaws in the complaint and their impact on the prosecution:
The High Court had quashed the proceedings due to a technical flaw in the complaint, which named Messrs Modi Distillery instead of Messrs Modi Industries Limited. The Supreme Court noted that this flaw was attributable to the deliberate failure of the industrial unit to provide necessary information. The Court emphasized that such a technical flaw should not allow the respondents to escape prosecution. The Court directed the matter to be remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to allow the appellant to amend the complaint formally.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the issue of process to the respondents. The learned Magistrate was instructed to proceed with the trial expeditiously in accordance with the law.