1

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
  M.Cr.C. No.5785/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board)
  M.Cr.C. No.5799/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board)




                      M.Cr.C. No.5785/2018
                              and
                      M.Cr.C. No.5799/2018

Indore, Dated: 27/03/2018

            Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
                               ORDER

This common order shall govern the disposal of both the M.Cr.C. Nos. 5785/2018 and 5799/2018.

02. The applicants have preferred these miscellaneous applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), against orders dated 01/02/2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, District Dhar in Cr. Revision No.10/2017 challenging the charges framed against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 25 and 26 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and in Cr.Revision No.53/2017, challenging the charges framed against the applicant for offence under Section 21 & 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

03. On perusal of record it appears that after framing of the charges against the applicants, the prosecution evidence has been recorded by the trial Court and accused has also been examined under Section 313 of 'The Code'. Now the case is fixed for recording of defence evidence. Under these circumstances, the case is likely to be on its conclusion, therefore, at this stage, no 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5785/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board) M.Cr.C. No.5799/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board) interference is warranted against the order of framing of charge. The reason that scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charge is very limited, whereas the Court enjoys more latitude after recording of evidence. This Court is absenting from making observations on the merit of the case as the same may influence the the trial Court.

04. Before parting with the matter, it is pertinent to note that on the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the present matter was listed on 26/03/2017 for early hearing of the matter before this Court. On that date, counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 20/03/2018, the trial Court has closed his right to produce defence evidence and the case is fixed today for pronouncement of judgment, therefore, he prayed for stay of pronouncement of judgment. However, on the perusal of record, it was found that no such order sheet has been produced by the applicant to show that without giving sufficient opportunity, his defence evidence has been closed. Therefore, the status of the trial was called for from the trial Court, by which it came into the knowledge of this Court that the case is still listed for defence evidence on 28/03/2018.

05. Thus this Court intends to place on record its dis- pleasure with regard to this practice in which, without producing copy of the order sheets, a prayer was made to stay the pronouncement of the judgment and also the casual approach of the learned counsel for the applicant, whereby he made a statement before this Court that the case is fixed today for pronouncement of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5785/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board) M.Cr.C. No.5799/2018 (Kowa Spinarse Ltd., & Ors. vs. M.P. Pollution Board) judgment without verifying the current status of the case. This Court would not appreciate such practice and hope that the same shall not be repeated.

06. With the aforesaid observations, these miscellaneous applications filed by the applicants are hereby dismissed.

07. A copy of this order shall be kept in the record of M.Cr.C. No.5799/2018.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.04.03 09:55:22 +05'30'