NOORULLA KHAN versus KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 13-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
NOORULLA KHAN
v.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.599 Of 2021)
JULY 13, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – ss.
43, 44, 47 and 48 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 –
Gram Panchayat and the appellant, who at the relevant time was
chief officer of said Gram Panchayat, were accused of having
committed offences punishable u/ss. 43 and 44 of the 1974 Act –
Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class
found appellant guilty of the offences – However, the Additional
Session Judge held that the appellant was entitled to protection u/
s.197 of Cr.P.C. and in the absence of requisite sanction, his
prosecution was invalid – The High Court set aside the view taken
by the lower Appellate Court and since the matter was not considered
by the lower Appellate Court on merits, the High Court remitted the
matter back to the lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration on
merits – On appeal, held: If the concerned public servant happens
to be a chief officer or commissioner of a Municipal Council or
Town Panchayat, he cannot strictly be called “the Head of the
Department of the Government”– Therefore, in terms of decision of
this Court in Karnataka State Pollution Control Board v. B. Heera Naik,
the matter would not come u/s. 48 of the Water Act – But the matter
would come directly u/s. 47 of the Water Act – According to said
decision, even in such cases, the deeming fiction available u/s. 47
of the Water Act would dis-entitle the public servant from the
protection u/s. 197 of the Code – Therefore, the High Court was
right and justified in setting-aside the decision of the lower Appellate
Court, which was purely based on the issue of the applicability of
s.197 of the Cr.P.C. – In the circumstances, the High Court rightly
remitted the matter to the lower Appellate Court to be considered
afresh on merits.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. What emerges from the various decisions of the
Supreme Court is:
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 243
243
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
a. If the violation of the provisions of the Water Act was at
the hands of a Department, subject to the satisfaction of the
requirements under Section 48 of the Water Act, “the Head of
the Department” would be deemed to be guilty. This would of
course be subject to the defences which are available to him to
establish whether the offence in question was committed without
his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent
the commission of such offence.
b. By virtue of the decision of this Court in V.C. Chinnappa
Goudar, because of deeming fiction under Section 48 of the Water
Act, the protection under Section 197 of the Code would not be
available and the matter ought to be considered de hors such
protection.
c. If the concerned public servant happens to be a Chief
Officer or Commissioner of a Municipal Council or Town
Panchayat, he cannot strictly be called “the Head of the
Department of the Government”. Therefore, in terms of decision
of this Court in B. Heera Naik, the matter would not come under
Section 48 of the Water Act. But the matter would come directly
under Section 47 of the Water Act. According to said decision,
even in such cases, the deeming fiction available under Section
47 of the Water Act would dis-entitle the public servant from the
protection under Section 197 of the Code.
d. If the offenders are other than public servants or where
the principal offenders are corporate entities in private sectors,
the question of protection under Section 197 would not arise. [Para
11][248-E-H; 249-A-C]
2. If this Court considers the present matter in the light of
these postulates, the case stands completely covered by the
decision of this Court in B. Heera Naik. [Para 12][249-C-D]
3. The High Court was, therefore, right and justified in
setting-aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court, which
was purely based on the issue of the applicability of Section 197
of the Code. In the circumstances, the High Court rightly remitted
the matter to the lower Appellate Court to be considered afresh
on merits. [Para 13][249-D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board, (2015) 14 SCC 535; Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board v. B. Heera Naik, (2020) 16
SCC 298: [2019] 17 SCR 305 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 14 SCC 535
relied on
Para 9
[

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.