Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) filed an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1997. The Sessions Court had acquitted M/s. Deepak Fertilisers and Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. (respondent No.1) and its officers (respondents No.2 and 3) of offences punishable under Sections 24 read with Section 43 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The case originated from a complaint filed by the MPCB alleging that the respondent-company was discharging trade effluent without proper treatment and without obtaining valid consent from the Board, thereby polluting the water bodies. The trial court (JMFC, Panvel) in Regular Criminal Case No.122 of 1994 convicted the respondents on 20.12.1996, but the appellate court reversed the conviction. The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, found that the appellate court had erred in its appreciation of evidence. The High Court noted that the respondent-company had not obtained the requisite consent to operate and was discharging effluent in violation of the conditions. The chemical analysis reports and the testimony of Board officers clearly established the offence. The High Court held that the appellate court's judgment was perverse and unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The respondents were directed to undergo the sentence as originally imposed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378(4) CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court may interfere with an acquittal if the lower appellate court's findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if the judgment is unsustainable in law. The court must examine whether the reasons for acquittal are cogent and logical. (Paras 1-9) B) Environmental Law - Water Pollution - Sections 24 and 43 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Consent to Operate - The failure to obtain or comply with consent conditions amounts to an offence. The burden is on the accused to show compliance. The court held that the respondent-company had not obtained valid consent and was discharging trade effluent without proper treatment, causing pollution. (Paras 2-8) C) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Expert Testimony - The evidence of the Board's officers and the chemical analysis report showing non-compliance with standards was sufficient to establish the offence. The appellate court's rejection of this evidence was erroneous. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-company for offences under Sections 24 read with Section 43 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was justified, and whether the appellate court erred in reversing the conviction without proper appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Section 378(4) CrPC
- Section 24 read with Section 43 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- 1974
- Consent to Establish and Operate
- Burden of Proof on Accused
- Strict Liability for Pollution
