U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD versus DR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 349 
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
A 
.. .. 
II. 
DR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 12, 2008 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 
~~~ 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.482 - Petition for quashing of·complaint- Assertions c 
against company and its officers of discharging of untreated 
trade effluent in river - Complaint quashed by High Court as 
-
regards the Joint Managing Director of the company holding 
that there was no material to show that at the relevant time 
he was in-charge and responsible to the company for conduct 
of its business - HELD: High Court has quashed the 0 
complaint arising in an environmental matter in a casual 
manner - There are specific averments in the complaint with 
) 
reference to all officers named therein including the Joint 
Managing Director of the Company- Order of High Court set 
aside - Circumstances under which power u/s 482 can be I! 
exercised - Discussed - Water (Prevention and Control of 
Pollution) Act, 1974 - ss. 25,26,44 and 47. 
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: 
Complaint against company and its officers responsible 
for discharge of untreated trade effluent in river - Quashed F 
by High Court as regards the Joint Managing Director of the 
Company- HELD: In the matter of this nature affecting public 
health, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with the cases 
involving pollution of air and water - Courts share the 
parliamentary concern and legislative intent of environmental G 
laws to check the escalating pollution level and restore the 
balance of our environment - Those who discharge noxious 
... 
polluting effluents into streams, rivers or any other water 
bodies which inflicts the public health at large should be dealt 
349 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 
A 
with strictly de hors the technical objection$ - Water 
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- ss. 25,26,44 
and 47 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. 
On an application by· a company of which 
respondent no. 1 was the Joint Managing Director, a 
B 
conditional consent was granted by the appellant-UP 
Pollution Control Board on 22.1.1983 to the company to 
discharge its trade effluent in river Sai .. However, on 
inspection by the officers of the Board, it was found that 
the Unit of the Company did not cons~ruct any effluent 
c treatment plant but was discharging the,trade effluent in 
river Sai without treatment and in violation of the consent 
order. Letters were sent to the Company to the effect that 
·non-compliance of the· conditions of the consent order 
would be an offence u/s 44 of th~ Water (Prevention and 
Control of Pollution) Act, 19~4, but the company 
D continued to defy the provisions of the Act. Ulti.mately, 
complaint case No; 44 was filed against the company and 
its Chairman, Vic:e-Chairman, Managing Director, Joint 
Managing Director .(Respondent no. 1), Directo.rs and 
some of its senior .. officers, allegirig Violation of SS. 25 and 
E 
26 and for penal action u/s 44 of the Act. On a . petition 
filed. uls 482 CrPC stating that at the relevant time 
responden! .. no. 1 was not concerned with day-to-day 
business of the comP.any and, th~refore, he could not be 
F 
prosecuted, the High Court quashed the complaint so far 
as it related to him. 
In the instant appeal filed by the Bbard, the questions 
for consideration before the Cour'.t were as to whether the 
complaint disclosed any material ag'ainst respondent no. 
1, Joint Managing Director, particularly, ·his control over 
G the decision making process. of the Company and 
whether the High Court was justified in quashing the 
complaint in so far as respor;id'enf no. 1, in a petition 
under Section 482. Cr.P .C. 
/ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1.. It is settled legal position that at the stage 
·-
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 351 
KUMAR MODI & ANR. 
... 
of issuing\process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned A 
, 
.. 
with the a~legations made in the complaint or the evidence 
led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie 
satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for 
proceeding against the accused. [P~ra 14] (360-H; 361-A] 
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi'f~nd B 
Others (1976) 3 sec 736, relied on. 
1.2. This Court has held exercise of power under 
~·""' 
Section 482 of the Code as an exception; and under the 
rule there are three circumstances under which the 
inher
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.