9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint of U.P. Pollution Control Board discloses any material against the first respondent, particularly his control over the decision-making process of the Company. 2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint against the first respondent in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Material Against the First Respondent The Supreme Court examined whether the complaint filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board contained sufficient material against the first respondent, Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi, Joint Managing Director of the Company. The complaint alleged that the Company and its officers, including the first respondent, were responsible for the discharge of untreated trade effluent into the river Sai, violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The complaint specifically mentioned that the accused persons were responsible for the conduct of the business and the non-compliance with the conditions of the consent order. The Court noted that the complaint included detailed averments about the roles of the accused persons, including the first respondent, in the day-to-day affairs and decision-making process of the Company. The Court emphasized that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is primarily concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Issue 2: Justification of the High Court's Decision The High Court had quashed the complaint against the first respondent on the grounds that there was no material to show that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning. It referred to various precedents, including the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, which established that detailed examination of evidence is not required at the stage of issuing process. The Court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court found that the High Court had exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a casual manner, which was not warranted in this case involving serious environmental concerns. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the complaint against the first respondent. It directed the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution) to proceed with the complaint and dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Court also allowed the first respondent to apply for exemption from personal appearance after making the first appearance, subject to conditions deemed fit by the Special Court. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back for trial without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint.
|
