Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/200/1994	 2/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

 IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 200 of 1994
 

 TO
 

 CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 202 of 1994
 

 WITH
 

 CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 239 of 1995
 
 
===============================================
 

GUJARAT
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
 

Versus
 


INTERMEDIATE
SALES CORP. & Others.
 

 


 

 Appearance
:
 

 Criminal
Revision Application No.200 of 1994 
Mr
SUNIL L MEHTA for the Applicant. 
UNSERVED-REFUSED BY Opponent
No.1 
Mr MANISH J PATEL for Opponents Nos.  2, 4 & 5. 
Mr AM
PAREKH for Opponent No. 3, 
Mr UR Bhatt, APP, for Opponent No. 6
 

 Criminal
Revision Application No.201 of 1994 
Mr SUNIL L MEHTA for
the Applicant. 
Mr MANISH J PATEL for Opponents Nos.  1, 2 &
3. 
Mr UR Bhatt, APP, for Opponent No. 4.
 

 Criminal
Revision Application No.202 of 1994 
Mr SUNIL L MEHTA for
the Applicant. 
Mr MANISH J PATEL for Opponents Nos.  1& 2. 
Mr
UR Bhatt, APP, for Opponent No. 3.
 

 Criminal
Revision Application No.239 of 1995 
Mr SUNIL L MEHTA for
the Applicant. 
Mr BB Naik for Opponents Nos.  1, 3 & 4.       
                                                  Opponent No.2
served. 
Mr KC Shah, APP, for Opponent No.
5. 
===============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR. JUSTICE A. L. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/12/2008 

 

 
 
 ORAL
ORDER

:-

1. These Revision Applications arise out of orders passed by Magisterial Court in four different cases, the details of which are as follows:

Cr.R.A. No. Criminal Case No. Court Order date 200/94 1706/89 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad 25.01.1994 201/94 2011/89 Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad 11.02.1994 202/94 2251/89 Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad 19.01.1994 239/95 2254/89 Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad 30.04.1993

2. As a common question arises for determination by this Court, these four Revision Applications are heard together and are decided by this common order.

3. The only question that arises for determination before this Court is whether the order granting discharge to the respondents can be sustained or confirmed by this Court when it is founded on fact dehors the record? The answer obviously; is in the negative.

4. The Discharge was granted to the respondent by the Magistrial Court mainly on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that while drawing samples of the effluent, no request was made by the representative of the respondent-industry to divide sample in two parts for sending it to the Government Laboratory for analysis and thus the requirement of Section 21(5) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has not been complied with.

5. In this regard, it is evident from the order impugned itself that the statements of witnesses recorded before the Court indicate that notice was given for drawing the sample and while drawing the sample it was asked to the representative of the Industry as to whether they desire the sample to be sent to the Government Analyst for analysis. It was answered in the negative and consent was signed by the representative.

6. It is thus clear that the foundation of the order, that there is no evidence to show that there was no demand for dividing the sample for sending one of the samples to the Government Laboratory for analysis is de-hors the record. Under the circumstances, the Revision Applications preferred by the original complainant deserve to be allowed by setting aside the orders discharging the respondents impugned herein.

7. Accordingly, the Revision Applications are allowed. Orders passsed by the learned Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 25.01.1994, 11.02.1994, 19.01.1994 and 30.04.1994 in Criminal Case Nos. 1706 of 1989, 2011 of 1989, 2251 of 1989 and 2254 of 1989, respectively, are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the trial Court for proceeding further from the stage of the order impugned in this revision.

7. It is clarified that since the revision against the orders of discharge on this sole ground, it would be open for the revisionists to raise legally permissible contentions before the trial Court.

( A. L. DAVE, J.) niru*     Top