2000 (3) TMI 1097 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Sessions Judge's quashing of the process issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Applicability of Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to the Directors and Managers of the company.
3. Impact of the long delay in the prosecution process on the trial.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Sessions Judge's Quashing of the Process:
The Sessions Judge quashed the process issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the erroneous ground that the magistrate did not pass "a speaking order" for issuing such summons. The Supreme Court clarified that there is no legal requirement u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a magistrate to record reasons for issuing process. The Court emphasized that detailed orders are unnecessary at stages such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, and framing of charges, as per the precedent set in Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal [2000(1) SCC 722].

2. Applicability of Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
The complaint alleged that the company, M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd., and its Directors were responsible for discharging noxious trade effluents into the river Gomti, violating Section 24 of the Act and thereby committing an offence u/s 43 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act stipulates that every person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business is deemed guilty of the offence. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint contained sufficient averments implicating the Directors and Managers, thus justifying the issuance of process against them.

3. Impact of the Long Delay in the Prosecution Process:
Despite the lapse of seventeen years since the institution of the complaint, the Supreme Court held that this delay cannot absolve the respondents from the trial. The Court stressed the importance of addressing pollution-related offences seriously and expediting the trial. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case with "faster pace and accelerated velocity" and allowed for the possibility of exempting the accused from personal appearance under certain conditions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Sessions Court, directing the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law and dispose of it expeditiously.