Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
ACMM (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL DISTRICT: THC: DELHI
CC No. 512995/2016
DPCC Vs. M/s. Electroplating Works & anr
JUDGEMENT
(a)Serial no. of the case : 512995/2016
(b)Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2000
(c)Name of complainant : Sh. Arun Mishra
Delhi Pollution Control Committee,
Through: Shri Anwar A. Khan
(Assistant Environmental
Engineer), IV th Floor, ISBT
Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
(d)Name, parentage, residence 1) M/s Electroplating Works
House of Mange Ram
Mukundpur Village,
Delhi-110042.
2) Mange Ram
House no. 38,
Mukundpur Village,
Delhi-110042.
(e)Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 24/25/26/33A, r/w of Sec
41,42,43,44 & 49 of the water
(prevention & Control of pollution)
Act, 1974.
(f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g)Final order : Convicted for the offences u/s
43/44 of the Water Act
(h)Date of such order : 04.10.2016
Date of institution of complaint : 09.06.2000
Date of Reservation of Judgment : 03.10.2016
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 04.10.2016
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 1 of 7
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. The complainant i.e Delhi Pollution Control Committee (in short DPCC) filed the present complaint against the accused M/s Electroplating Works and accused no. 2 Mange Ram (Proprietor of accused no.1) through Sh. Anwar Ali Khan, the then AEE.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is presently working as Assistant Environmental Engineer in DPCC and was placed at the disposal of Vigilance Squad setup by Government of Delhi and is a Public Servant by virtue of section 50 of the Water Act of 1974 (in short the 'Act'). It is further stated in the complaint that complainant is authorized to file the complaint by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee.
3. It is further stated in the complaint that according to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, no industrial effluent is allowed to be discharged directly or indirectly into the river Yamuna w.e.f. 1 st Nov, 1999 and further vide order dated 24.01.2000 Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that no industry in Delhi shall discharge their effluent into any drain leading to river Yamuna or to river Yamuna itself which has the effect of Polluting the said river. It is further stated in the complaint that the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in the order dated 13.09.1999 that there are enough laws at the command of the State to enable it to take appropriate action against the polluters in order to see that the river is not polluted and has directed the National Capital Territory of Delhi to take measures as it may deem proper if necessary by passing appropriate order Under Section 5 of the Environment Act and Water Act, 1974 to ensure that no industrial effluent is allowed to be discharged directly or indirectly into the river Yamuna.
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 2 of 7
4. It is further stated in the complaint that on 23.04.2000, Vigilance Squad constituted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi consisting of a team of SDM (environment) and Engineer of Delhi Pollution Control Committee carried out the inspection of the Industrial unit operating in the name and style of the respondents to be occupier of the said industrial unit and after the inspection by the team who made the following remarks in the inspection report. "Unit operational without keeping any effluent treatment ETP".
5. It is further stated in the complainant that a copy of the Inspection Report was duly signed by the respondents / accused at the site.
6. It is further stated in the complainant that by carrying out the Electroplating and discharging trade effluent without proper treatment and without any consent as required under the Water Act 1974, respondents / accused violated the provisions of section 25 and 26 of the Water Act, 1974 which are punishable under Section 42 and 44 fo the Water Act, 1974.
7. It is further stated in the complainant that by discharging the untreated effluent from his industrial unit into a drain the respondent was causing severe pollution and respondents / accused have violated the Provision of Section 24 of the Act. Hence, the present complaint.
8. Complaint was filed by the complainant. After taking cognizance, accused Mange Ram was summoned being the Proprietor of M/s. Electroplating Works. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for pre-charge evidence.
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 3 of 7
9. Complainant has examined only one witness i.e CW-1 Dr. Anwar Ali Khan, EE, DPCC in pre-charge evidence. CW-1 has deposed that on 23.04.2000, he alongwith SDM, Civil Lines visited the unit of the accused and it was found that electroplating unit was operational and effluence from the unit were discharged to the drain without any treatment. He has further deposed that no ETP / treatment facility was installed at the premises to treat the effluent. He has further deposed that accused Mange Ram was also present during the inspection. He has further deposed that there was gross violation of provisions of Water Act and Pollution Control norms. He has further deposed that he was authorized vide order dated 05.05.2000 which is Ex. CW-1/A and complaint is Ex. CW-1/2.
10. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence was closed and vide order dated 04.07.2016, a charge under Section 43 & 44 of the Act for the violation of Sections 24/25/26 of the Act was framed against accused Mange Ram.
11. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for post-charge evidence. In post charge evience, complainant has examined two witnesses. CW- 1 is Dr. Anwar Ali Khan, the then EE, DPCC and CW-2 is Sh. Arun Mishra, Executive Director, DSIIDC. CW-2 has deposed on the same lines as deposed by the CW-1. CW-2 has also deposed about the fact that when he visited the premises alongwith CW-1, they found operating an electroplating works without any effluent treatment plant. Both witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel / Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. Thereafter, post-charge evidence was closed.
12. Statement of accused was recorded. In his statement accused denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 4 of 7 implicated in this case. However, accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the relevant records. I have also gone through the relevant provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
14. The relevant provisions of section 24/25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 are reproduced for ready reference:-
24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, -
(a)no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any [stream or well or sewer or on land], or
(b)no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharge
- [(1) Subject to this provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, -
i. establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or ii. begin to make any new discharge of sewage
26. Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent. - Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a [stream or well or sewer or on land], the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 5 of 7 the person referred to in that section subject to the notification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section [shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Govt. by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette].
15. Complainant has to prove that accused was engaged in activity of electroplating and discharging trade effluent without any treatment facility. To support its case, complainant has examined two witnesses. Both witnesses have specifically deposed that on 23.04.2000, they visited the unit of accused and during inspection, it was found that electroplating unit was operational and effluence from the unit were discharged to the drain without any treatment. They have further deposed that no ETP / treatment facility was installed at the premises to treat the effluent. Hence, both the witnesses are corroborating each other on material facts. Both witnesses are deposing that they found operating an electroplating works without any effluent treatment plant to treat the effluents. Both witnesses were cross-examined by the accused. Only suggestions were given in the cross-examination which were denied by the witnesses. Both witnesses have passed the test of cross- examination. There is no material contradictions in their testimony. Except suggestions, nothing important was put to the witness to impeach their credibility. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of witnesses. Both witnesses have duly supported the case of the complainant.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the complainant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused. Accordingly, accused is held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under sections 43/44 of the Water Act, 1974 for the violation of Section 24/25/26 of Water Act, 1974.
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 6 of 7
17. Let convict be heard on sentence.
(Deepak Wason) ACMM (Spl Acts): Central District Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Announced in open Court today i.e 4th October, 2016.
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 7 of 7 CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s. Electroplating Works & anr 04.10.2016 Present: Sh. Nilesh Sahani, Ld. counsel for the complainant with Ms. Jitender Gaba i.e AR of the complainant.
Sh. Chaman Lal, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused with accused on bail.
Vide separate order dictated to the steno in the open court, accused is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 43/44 of the Water Act, 1974 for the violation of Section 24/25/26 of Water Act, 1974.
At the request of the convict, arguments on sentence heard today itself.
It is submitted by convict that he is 70 years of age. It is further submitted by him that he is a very poor person. It is further submitted by him that he is facing trial of the case for last about 16 years and he has suffered lot of mental agony and requested that a lenient view may be taken and he be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the complainant has requested that strict view be taken against the convict.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the accused and the fact that convict is facing trial for last about 16 years, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met, if a lenient view is taken against him and he be released on probation.
Accordingly, convict is released on probation on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months. Convict is also directed to receive the sentence as and when called upon during the said period and in the meantime, he is directed to maintain CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 8 of 7 peace and good behaviour in the society and not to commit the same offence for the above said period. He is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as a cost of proceedings in the Court and Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant as a compensation for Environmental Damages.
Cost of proceedings Rs. 1,000/- paid and an amount of Rs. 9,000/- also paid to the complainant.
Probation bond furnished & accepted.
Copy of order be given to convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room, after
necessary compliance.
(Deepak Wason)
ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:
THC: Delhi: 04.10.2016
CC no. 512995/2016 DPCC Vs. M/s Electroplating Works & anr Page 9 of 7