V.C. CHINNAPPA GOUDAR versus KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 3 S.C.R. 652 
A 
V.C. CHINNAPPAGOUDAR 
.''.':., 
v. 
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & 
8
:.~.. 
ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 755 of2010) 
MARCH 10, 2015. 
C 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss.5 and 197 -
Protection uls. 197 - To public servants - For prosecution u/ 
D s. 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 
1974 - Availability of - Held: The statutory prescription 
contained in s.48of197 4 Act, is in conflict withs. 197 Cr.PC. 
and hence protection uls. 197 Cr.PC. is not available to public 
servants - Since there is no specific provision under 1974 
E Act, providing for securing sanction before proceeding, in 
view of s.5 Cr.PC. also protection uls. 197 is not available-
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 197 4- s.48. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 48 of Water (Prevention 
and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 the guilt is deemed to 
be committed, the moment the offence under the 1974 
Act is alleged against the Head of the Department of a 
G Government Department. It is a rebuttable presumption 
and under the proviso to Section 48, the Head of the 
Department will get an opportunity to demonstrate that 
the offence was committed without his knowledge or that 
in spite of due diligence to prevent the commission of 
H 
652 
V. C. CHINNAPPA GOUDAR v. KARNATAKA STATE 
653 
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
such an offence, the same came to be committed. It is A 
far different from saying tliat the safeguard provided 
under the proviso to Section 48 of the 197 4 Act would in 
any manner enable the Head of the Department of the 
Government Department to seek umbrage u/s. 197 
Cr.P.C. and such a course, if permitted to be made, that B 
would certainly conflict with the deemed fiction power 
created under Section 48 of the 197 4 Act. [Para 8] [656-
E-H; 657-A] 
2. Section 5 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that in the C 
absence of specific provisions to the contrary, nothing 
contained in the Cr.P.C. would affect any special or local 
laws providing for any special form or procedure 
prescribed to be made applicable. There is no specific D 
provision providing for any sanction to be secured for 
proceeding against a public servant under the 197 4 Act. 
[Para 9] [657-B-C] 
3. Thus, in the light of the said statutory 
prescription contained in Section 48, there is no scope E 
for invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C. even though the 
appellants are stated to be public servants. [Para 10] 
[657-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal F 
Appeal No. 755 of 2010 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2009 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 
13664 of 2008 (GM-POL) 
G 
WITH 
Crl.A. No. 464of2015 
H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
A. Mariarputham, S. N. Bhat, E. C. Vidya Sagar, 
B 
Jennifer John, Subhash Chandra Sagar, V. N. Raghupathy, 
Parikshit P. Angadi, Sanjay R. Hegde for the appearing parties. 
'Mt: 
... 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 
·1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. Leave granted in SLP(Crl.) 7732 of 2010. 
C 
3. By the impugned judgment in these appeals, the 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the application 
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for 
quashing the complaint and all other proceedings in C.C. 
D No.758/2005/367/08 on the file of J.M.F.C., Nippani, Judicial 
Magistrate, First Class, Sankeshwar. As the issue dealt with 
by the Division Bench of the High Court is identical, both the 
appeals are disposed of by this common order. 
4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2010 
E was holding the post of Commissioner and the appellant in 
the case of Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 7732 
of 2010 was in the post of Chief Officer Grade II. The question 
that was posed for consideration before the Division Bench 
F was that both the appellants admittedly being public servants, 
the prosecution as against them could not have been lodged 
under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and control of 
Pollution) Act, 197 4 (hereinafter called the '197 4 Act']. The said 
contention was raised on the footing that being public servants, 
G sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before the 
prosecution was launched against them. The Division Bench 
held that by virtue of Section 48 read along with Section 49( 1) 
of the 197 4 Act, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.