1

                IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
       ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02 
                       (CENTRAL) DELHI

Crl. R. NO.  69/13

M/S Kishan Chand Chaina Ram
6449­52 Katra Bariyan
Fateh Puri
Delhi­110006.

                                                                   ........REVISIONIST
versus


Delhi Pollution Control Committee
Through Shri Shyam Sunder
Envr. Engineer
4th Floor, I.S.B.T
Kashmere Gate
Delhi­110006.

                                                         
                                                        .......RESPONDENT
                                                                            
                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.06.2013 
                                     DATE OF  JUDGMENT : 1.11.2013          

J U D G M E N T

1. The present criminal revision petition u/s 397 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the present revisionist against the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 passed by Shri D. K. Sharma ACMM (Spl Act) wherebywhereby holding that there is sufficient ground to Cr. R. NO. 69/13 Page 1 of 6 pages 2 frame the charge against the accused u/s 24/25/26 read with section 43 and 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1974.

2. Brief facts leading to the present revision are that respondent herein had filed a complaint u/s 24, 25, 26, 33A r/w Section 41, 42,43,44 and 49 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 against the revisionist alleging therein that on 30.05.2000 vigilance squad carried out alleged inspection of the industrial unit run by the revisionist in the name and style of M/S Kishan Chand Chaina Ram. Some discrepancies were found. Arguments were heard by Ld Trial Court and vide impugned order Ld Trial Court had passed the order on charge.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld Trial Court, present revision has been filed on the following grounds:

a) that Ld Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused u/s 24/25/26 read with section 43/44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 without there being any material on record.

b) that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no evidence available on record to hold the revisionist guilty of violating the provisions of said Act.

c) that the alleged inspection report is forged and fabricated Cr. R. NO. 69/13 Page 2 of 6 pages 3 as no inspection was carried out on 30.05.2000d) that Ld Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order inspite of the fact that there was been material contradictions and inconsistency in the allegations leveled by the complainant.

with these grounds revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order passed by Ld Trial Court.

4. I have heard Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld counsel for revisionist and Sh Hitesh Bhutani, Ld counsel for respondents.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the parties and gone through the file.

6. In this case, revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 whereby it was held that there is sufficient ground to frame the charge against the accused u/s 24/25/26 read with section 43 and 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1974.

7. In the entire revision, grounds for challenging the impugned order as taken by revisionist are that there are material contradictions and inconsistency in the allegations levelled by the complainant; there was no evidence available on record to hold the revisionist guilty of violation of the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1974 (herein after called as the Act). Ld counsel for revisionist had argued that in the report, it is mentioned that coal fire bhatties were being Cr. R. NO. 69/13 Page 3 of 6 pages 4 used by the revisionist in the premises whereas SDM examined as CW­2 had stated that gas chullahs were being used. The allegations of the complainant in filing the complaint is also being challenged by the revisionist in the present revision. It is also the contention of revisionist that no consent is required in respect to shops of halwais in non conforming areas and the consent is only required for industrial units. There is nothing on record to prove that polluting water was being discharged in the sewer.

8. On the other hand, Ld counsel for respondent had refuted the averments of revisionist and has stated that complainant was authorized to file the complaint. There was no effluent treatment plant being maintained in the inspected premises, therefore, untreated water was being released in the sewer hence provisions of section 24/25/26 read with section 43 and 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1974 are attracted against the revisionist.

9. After considering the submissions of Ld counsel for the parties, provisions of law and impugned order, I am of the opinion that revision as preferred by revisionist does not have any merits in the case. Admittedly the effluent treatment plant was not installed in the premises in question, there are specific allegations against the revisionist that untreated water Cr. R. NO. 69/13 Page 4 of 6 pages 5 containing ghee and oil and other ramenants of manufacturing sweets were being discharged along with water in the sewer. This fact has not been disputed by the revisionist. The only defense taken by them in argument is that before cleaning utensils they were wiping same with cloth. In my opinion, this is triable question which is to be decided by Ld Trial Court during the course of evidence. Whether oil and ghee, which was bound to be present in the utensils used for manufacturing of sweet, was being removed before cleaning them or not. At the stage of charge, Ld Trial Court had only to consider the prima facie case against the accused persons and since it has been proved on record, prima facie, by the complainant that accused persons is running manufacturing unit of sweets and namkeen in premises in question; secondly there was no effluent treatment plant installed; thirdly there was no other provision being maintained for treating the water before going in sewer and fourthly notification on which the revisionist is relying, which provides that ETP is not to be fixed in manufacturing of sweets shop, is after the date of inspection and does not declare the previous inspections to be invalid. In my opinion, on these grounds revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Order of Ld Trial Court is upheld.

10. In view of my above discussion, the revision petition filed by Cr. R. NO. 69/13 Page 5 of 6 pages 6 the revisionist is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before Ld Trial Court on 15/11/2013.

11. Trial court record be sent back to Ld Trial Court with the copy of the order. File of revision be consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 1st     November, 2013.
                                                                ( SHAIL  JAIN )         
                                                ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
                                                                            DELHI




Cr. R. NO. 69/13                                                     Page 6 of 6 pages