1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.K.SREEDHAR RAO

        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.217/2007

BETWEEN:

       1. M/S VENKATESHWARA
          BRICK WORKS
          NEAR BROOKE FIELDS
          WHITEFIELD ROAD
          KUNDALAHALLI
          BANGALORE
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
          PETITONER NO.2

       2. SRI THIMMAIAH REDDY
          S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY
          AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
          NEAR BROOKE FIELDS
          WHITEFIELD ROAD
          KUNDALAHALLI
          BANGALORE.                  ... PETITIONERS

       (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI & ASSTS., ADVOCATE)

AND:

       THE KARNATAKA STATE
       POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
       22ND FLOOR, NETHAJI SUBHAS
       CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING
       (P.U.BUILDING), M.G.ROAD
       BANGALORE.                         ... RESPONDENT

       (BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

                           ***
                                  2




      THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22/01/2007 PASSED IN CRL.A. NO.15021/2006 ON THE FILE OF
THE    XXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER
SECTION 391 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TO MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The material facts of the prosecution case discloses that the petitioners are convicted by the trial court, whereas petitioners No.1 & 2 are convicted for committing offence under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and petitioner No.2 is sentenced to undergo SI for one year and six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to under go SI for three months.

2. The petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court against conviction. In the said appeal an application is filed for production of copies under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court rejected that application. Hence, this revision petition.

3. It is seen that production of documents should have been allowed by the Sessions Court with liberty to the respondent to contest the same. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent if such an application is allowed. The additional documents have some relevance to prove the defence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE VK