MCRC-13107-2015
(MANU ANAND MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs MADHYA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
                        HEAD OFFICE BHOPAL THR.)


02-12-2015

Parties through their counsel.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment
of the criminal complaint preferred by the
respondent- Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control
Board.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is a
managing director of M/s Cadbury India Ltd. now
known as Mondelez India Foods Private Limited ( a
Multinational Company). It has been further stated
that at present, he is posted at Mumbai as Managing
Director the the company.
Facts

of the case reveal that on 14.08.2014, on account of heavy rains, as alleged, certain effluents have been found in the local drain and in the industrial area outside of the factory and on an allegation that the factory is discharging effluents, alleged offence has been registered under Sections 43, 44 and 49 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Learned senior counsel has vehementally argued before this Court that keeping in view Section 47 of the Act, 1947, the question of impleadment of the Managing Director, does not arise. It has been further argued that the company by a resolution dated 23.05.2014 has appointed Mr. Jai Kumar Nair as Factory Manager under the provisions of “Factories Act, the Environmental (Protection) Act, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Cess Act, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act as well as for the purposes of other statutes. He has further stated that present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter as by no stretch of imagination the liability can be fastened upon the applicant keeping in view Section 47 of the Act, 1974. Section 47 of the Act reads as under:-

“47. Offences by companies.— (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” Keeping in view the statutory provisions of law, learned counsel has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Resultantly, it is directed that the further proceedings in criminal case No.434/15 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week, failing which the M.Cr.C. shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court. List the matter on 04.02.2015.

C.C. today itself.

(S.C.SHARMA) JUDGE