U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD versus M/S. MOHAN MEAKINS LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 27-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
v. 
MIS. MOHAN MEAKINS LTD. AND ORS. 
MARCH 27, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Water arul Air (Prevention arul Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 : 
Ss. 24, 43, 47-Water pollution-Distillery unit of industrial company-
Discharging noxious trade effluents into river Gomti-Complaint by U.P. 
Pollution Control Board against the company and its Directors and Man~ 
ager-Magistrate's order to issue process against accused quashed by Sessions 
Judge Oil the ground that it was a non-speaking order-Magistrate passing a 
detailed order-Sessions Judge quashing it again on the ground that no ' 
specific role was assigned to accused in the complaint-Revision petition .filed 
by Board dismissed by High Court after 15 years-Held, Sessions Judge erred 
in quashing orders passed by Magistrate-For issuing summons, Magistrate 
need not pass a detailed order-When offence has been committed by com-
pany, every person incharge of and responsible to company for conduct of its 
business is also made guilty of offence-Court should not deal with prosecu-
tion under the Act in a-casual manner-Magistrate would expeditiously pro-
ceed with the trial. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S. 204-Jssue of process-Ordered by Magistrate-Sessions Judge quash-
ing the order on the ground that Magistrate did not pass a speaking order-
Held, there is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing 
detailed order while issuing summons-Sessions Judge erred in quashing the 
order. 
The appellant-Board filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate arraying respondent No. 1 as first accused, and its directors as 
accused Nos. 2 to 10 and the Manager as accused No. 11. It was alleged 
that the distillery unit of respondent No. 1 was discharging noxious trade 
effluents in river Gomti making the water in the river more polluted to 
impermissible levels. It was alleged that the company violated s.24 of the 
Water and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and 
H 
thereby committed the offence under s.43. The trial court ordered to issue 
566 
-
l 
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. MOHAN MEAKINS LTD. 
567 
of process against the accused but the Sessions Judge, in revision petition, 
A 
moved by the accused, quashed the order on the ground that the Magistrate 
did not pass "a speaking order" for issuing summons. Thereafter the 
magistrate passed a detailed order and issued process to the accused. The 
accused again challenged the order holding that in the complaint no spe-
cific role was assigned to accused 2 to 11 in the flowing of the polluted 
B 
emuents into the river. The revision petition filed by the Board was also 
dismissed by the High Court after fifteen years. Aggrieved, the Board filed 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Sessions Judge was in error in quashing the process at 
the first round merely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had 
not passed a speaking order. There is no legal requirement imposed on a 
Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons under s.204 
Cr.P.C. what is to be looked at during the stage of issuing process is whether 
there are allegations in the complaint by which the Managers or Directors 
of the company can also be proceeded against, when the company is alleged 
to be guilty of the offence. It was unfortunate that the Sessions Judge 
himself did not look into the complaint at that stage to form his own opinion 
whether process could have been issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 
the basis of the averments contained in the complaint. Instead the Session 
Judge relegated the work to the trial magistrate for doing the exercise over 
again. [558-E; 573-B-C; 570-F] 
Kdnti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, [2000] 1SCC722, relied on. 
2. In view of s.47 of the Water and Air (Prevention and Control of 
Pollution) Act, 1974, where an offence under the Act has been committed 
by a company, every person who was in charge of and was responsible to 
the company for the conduct of its business is also made guilty of the 
offence by the statutory creation. Any Director, Manager or other officer of 
the company, who has consented to or connived in the commission of the 
said offence, is made liable for the punishment of the offence. [572-D-E] 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, [1983] 1 SCC 1, 
distinguished. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhu

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