. IN THE HIGH COUET OF' KARNATAKA
CHHHHTBENCHEUWDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 287'" DAY OF AUGUST, 2009

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAIAIESBT-'"'.;*  

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.477I/2QQ:'-...,.  E" A

BETWEEN   

M.K.GADAKAR,
AGED 53 YEARS,

MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER,

CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,

DANDELI,

UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,

NOW COMMISSIONER,   _     v 
MANGALORE UREAN DEvEL.OPMENT  
AUTHORITY, MANG,ALORE.,--.._j- ' A  '  '-

SOUTH CANARA DIST.R1C,T. ,   ' 3;; PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIy;*IRRA.EjIéIJV.S'.'HIREMATH, ADV.)

 I' V. EARIILATAEA STATE ~ROIA;,UTION
 C'O.NT'ROL BOARD,
78'*";.FLOO~R,'PUBLIC UTILITY BLDG.

M-, OIROAD ;-EAN~CIALORE,
BY 'ITSVIENVIRQIIMENTAL OEEICER

A  KSPC-B, KARWAR. ...RESPONDENT

" 'j._,('I3v_ SR1 JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) W' THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING 'TI-IIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH---'Tj"TH'E PROCEEDINGS DT.4.10.20()6 TAKING CoGNIzANeE,ToE'''TH'E' - OFFENCES ALLEGED AGAINSTM'1fHE ;'ACC:LTSED=_ IN I C.C.NO.991/2006 ON THE FILE OE;:THEA'TJMiFIC:;A 'D_"ANuDE'ILI_ QUASH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AG'AIN'Sfi* THE1--ACCUSE'D..,I'I\I._V C.C.NO.991/2006 ON THE FILEQI?..f1'HE'IJMf?C.;iDA:ND.ELi. THIS PETITION COMING ON --E_oR"E1NAL'HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE TIII'E.Ro_L!I;Ow'--ING';'I M The quash the proceedings dated 4i;I.1o;I2oo'6'iIiIECI.Cvi.'CII§';I99I/2006 on the file of JMFC., Dandeli, taiI<«irIgI.co'grIiizaI3cie against the accused. I transpires that Karnataka State Pollution Control E3ioEIr_d..?:respondent herein has filed a complaint on before the JMFC, Dandeli, against the I' ";5_eItitit'I_ner, who was the Municipal Commissioner, Dandeii for the Commission of Offences punishable under Sections W' 25 and 44 of Water (Prevention 8:, Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the JMFC, Dandeli has taken cognizance _ifor'~the aforesaid offence. The same is under challenge Court on various grounds.

3. According to the averrriernts 'amade 'the petition, the grounds raisedarez: Under of Prevention and Control__ of Wateri'Po1lutioni Acti Head of the Department shall }toi"'p.roceeded against and the petition.er~a;cciisetd .iVv:1f"----.<)_ the Municipal Heuadiiof the Department. ~The complaintpfiied the provisions of the Act and also statediith.at'»takingiTof cognizance is contrary to the i iivprovisioinis of__Sections 200, 204 and 197 of Cr.P.C. it is Ithat a letter has to be written by the Prin'cipa_1' 'Secretary to the Government to obtain sanction Junder the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Section of Cr.P.C. clearly states that according of sanction is "mandatory and without sanctioning order being filed W 4 before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate ought not to have proceeded to take cognizance.

4. The learned counsel appearing "fo:r"-..fl'*.i:ihe respondentwfioard submitted with reference to"«iS_i'ectioniii9fZ'i of Cr.P.C. that the Division Bench"of'i..gth;isfV:"Coiirt* in; W.P.No.30610/2008 (GM--POL} he1d'~th'at. the.p'piroV*isio1~,is~.of'--, Water Act has over--riding effectifon the,said7 enactment. Referring to Section 48 he siibniits that for taking cognizance sanction of the gove;rvriinentiv5is i'eC;i.i_ired burden is shifted on the Headof the "AccordingEy he submits that where an poffeiricei is vicornmvitted under the Act, the head of .th'eipdepartment is to be prosecuted and punished and to be guilty of the offence and no prior _sanct"i«r.)n .._'o'1=.«--previous sanction is required for taking .4 if " ' -ciognwiganceii ,/

5. The contention of the petitioner is that he was in--charge as a Commissioner of the Corporation"~andi'~he was not the Head of the Municipal Council. * regard to according sanction, permission' toTsa,1ictio_11 to it those corresponding to it has been being noticed, as per S€Cti0nis'«4{8~._21ndiV49 ofiVpth_c"'1i7ateiiAct," V previous sanction is not necesrS_a:jf"s.to ascertain as to Whether the petitioner is the i'head___o"f-- ,i'the'V__department or not.

iiii can be raised by the petitioner' Magistrate and seek for discharge.

dis...'-ithe case of the respondent that despite V _ corréspo.ndei~ice being made, no action has been taken to H M ii i ' discharge the filth.

W.

8. Of course, the Goévernment should have taken steps to see that pollution is prevented and discharge of filth by the Corporation authority or rnunicipalty is necessarily in violation of the provision of the Water

9. In the circumstances, white disposlhg.VVof:"th'ex petition, it is observed that the petitioneri"sehait_ it before the Magistrate seeking for his difficulties and that he is n'otr*t,he :of°';ithei"g Department and not iiable to i5e..:.proseoi1teA_iC{t.'tit for the Magistratewttot.:fj:;ass'fi.;app--ropriate'*o'rders after hearing, in accordaniiifii iW_ith 1axi1";'h«.iV V. i Sd/-t FUDGE