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.
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/2334/2009 8/ 8 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2334 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
JAGDEEP
V PANDYA - Appellant(s)
Versus
HALOL
PETROCHEM PVT LTD & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR RITURAJ
M MEENA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Opponent(s) : 1, 4,
MR
BHAVIK SHAH FOR MR NV GANDHI for Opponent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR HL JANI,
LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :
5,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 10/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The present appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30th March 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Joint Court), in Criminal Case No.1437 of 1993, and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them.
The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the respondent No.1 is limited Company and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the Directors of the respondent No.1 Company and managing day-to-day affairs of the respondent No.1 Company. It is the case of the prosecution that without obtaining necessary permission from the Board, the respondent No.1 Company discharging 1450 liter polluted water and thus the respondents have breached the Consent. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondents-accused have breached the conditions on which permission was given to the respondents-accused to discharge the polluted water and thereby they have violated the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 punishable under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is also the case of the prosecution that when on 02nd February 1993 Officials of the Board visited the respondent No.1 as per Section 23 of the Act, it was come to the notice that respondents have breached the conditions of the Consent. Therefore, notice as per Section 21 of the Act was issued and sample was collected and send the same for analysis to the Board Analyst. On examination, it was found that the respondents-accused have breached the conditions on which permission was given to the respondents-accused to discharge the polluted water and thereby they have violated the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 punishable under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary sanction, complaint has been filed against the respondents-accused.
Thereafter the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 30th March 2007 held the respondents-accused guilty for violation of Sections 24 and 25 read with Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.01,000/- under Section 43 of the Act. The learned Magistrate also ordered the respondents-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.01,000/- under Section 44 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 30th March 2007, the respondents-accused had preferred the Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court. The said Appeal was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 set aside the judgment and order dated 30th March 2007 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class (Joint Court), Halol, in Criminal Case No.1437 of 1993 and acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, Gujarat Pollution Control Board through his Assistant Law Officer, has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
I have heard Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Bhavik Shah, learned counsel for Mr.N.V. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also gone through the papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the Courts below.
Mr.Meena has taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it is established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the trial Court has rightly held the respondents-accused guilty for the offences alleged against them and, therefore, the Sessions Court, in Appeal, should not have interfered with the said findings of the trial Court. He has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of witnesses. He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them, is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record.
It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed.
Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.
Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as of the Sessions Court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the courts below and also considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant.
s The Sessions court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has found that prosecution has failed to follow provisions of Section 49(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Judge has observed that present complainant has no power to file a complaint. Even as per the order at Exhibit 54 clearly reveals that Chairman of the Board was authorised to file a complaint and he cannot sub-delegate his powers. Thus, the complaint filed by the Assistant Law Officer is without any authority given to him. It is also observed by the learned Judge that prosecution has failed to prove that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are managing day-to-day affairs of the respondent No.1 Company. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Mumbai and they are only Directors of the Company and not managing day-to-day affairs of the Company. Even prosecution has not followed the proper procedure in collecting the sample. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and acquitted the respondents-accused.
Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charges against the respondents-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondents-accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr.Meena, learned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Sessions Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Sessions Court was completely justified in setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges leveled against them. I find that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
In view of above, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2007, acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them, by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 30th March 2007 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Case No.1437 of 1993 holding the respondents-accused guilty of the charges levelled against them, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stands cancelled. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J) Anup Top