ORDER Mohd. Yamin, J.

1. By this order the above four revision petitions will be decided because the same points of law are involved in all of them.

2. In Cr. Revision No. 383/93 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1974). Om Prakash has challenged the order and wants that this Court should quash the charges.

3. In Cr. Revision No. 390/93 the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974 against petitioners M/s. Chhipa Yusuf Gani, Jeewan Singh and Mohd. Yusuf. They have challenged the order and want that the charges should be quashed.

4. In Cr. Revision No. 77/93 M/s. Jain Textiles and Prasanna Kumar have been charged for offence under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

5. Similarly in Cr. Revision No. 362/93, M/s. Mahaveer Process, Sumermal, Bhanwarlal and Radhey Shyam have been charged for the offences under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974. They also want that the charges should be quashed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and learned Public Prosecutor at length.

7. Complaints were filed against the different accused persons before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 24 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Act of 1974. Evidence was recorded in all the cases and the charges were framed thereafter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners first contended that there is no sanction as per provisions of Section 49 against the accused petitioners and cognizance could not have been taken by the Magistrate without the sanction in writing of the State Board. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of Board has drawn my attention to the proceedings of the Board dated 26-5-1979 wherein sanction to prosecute was granted by the Board. It is a general sanction and was considered in Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution v. M/s. Man Processors reported in (1996) 3 Raj LW 38: (1996 Cri LJ 4407) wherein the learned brother A.K. Singh, J. ordered that the learned Magistrate should not have dropped the proceedings and instead should have inquired if such a resolution was passed. Then the matter came up before Hon'ble brother BJ. Shethna, J. in SBCr. Revision Petition No. 138/89, Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution v. M/s. Daga Dyeing and Printing Works, Pali and 10 other criminal revisions decided on 5-8-1997 wherein following the Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution v. M/s. Man Processors reported in 1996 Cri LR (Raj) 611: (1996 Cri LJ 4407), it was observed that when there was the said resolution of sanction, separate sanction was not necessary. When there is such a view, learned counsel for the petitioners has no legs to stand on this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the reports of the analyst cannot be looked into because no analyst was appointed for the purpose of analysis of samples of water under the Act. To this, learned counsel for the Board replied that the analyst submitted reports which were filed before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that when the reports were prepared there was no notification of appointment of the analyst and that the notification was published on 26-4-1979 while the reports were prepared earlier. I find that though notification was issued on 26-7-1978, it was published in gazette on 26-4-1979. I find from Section 53(3) of the Act thai the analyst may not work as such before publication of the notification in the official gazette. What Section 53 enjoins is that the analyst will be appointed by notification in the official gazette. Learned counsel for the petitioners then drew my attention to Banshi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 Raj LR 277 wherein such a situation arose in a case of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Food Inspector was appointed by notification dated 4-7-1974. It was held that the appointment of Food Inspector was effective w.e.f. 21-11-1974 when the notification was published in the gazette and not from the date of notification. It might be alright in the case of Food Inspector because he is appointed by Government. But so far as appointmentk of analyst in this case is concerned, he was appointed by Board, arid notification was published by State Government late because of procedural delay. Section 53(3) of the Act of 1974 empowers the State Board to appoint such person as it thinks fit to be the Board Analyst for the purpose of analysis of samples of water. Board definitely has to send the notification to the Government for publication in its gazette. A gazette is published under the authority of the Government and not by the Board. The Government has taken 9 months in publishing the notification and in my view the person who was appointed as analyst would not have sit idle for 9 months. He was appointed on 26-7-1978 for the purpose of analysis as provided under Section 53 of the Act. Publication of the notification after 9 months would not mean thai the analyst was not empowered to analyse. Publication of notification on 26-7-1979 regarding appointment of analyst would not be a ground to quash the charge qua petitioners.

10. Then the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the inspection reports by the inspector were prepared at Jaipur and not at the site. This is a factual aspect and the petitioners have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness who inspected the site and then trial Court will give its verdict. But so far as question of quashing the charges is concerned, it cannot be'a valid ground.

11. Lastly it was submitted that there was no evidence as to where the discharged water of the factories was going. In other words, according to learned counsel, there was no evidence that noxious or polluting matter was entering into any stream. Learned Magistrate has recorded evidence and framed charges on the basis of it. The petitioners have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses of the prosecution and to produce their own evidence to prove that they were not permitting any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into any stream to go. These are not the cases of discharge either on the said points of law or on the basis of evidence.

12. Consequently, there is no need to interfere in the orders of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali. The revision petitions are hereby dismissed