Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009                                   1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                           Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009 (O&M)
                           Date of Decision: 19.7.2012


Punjab Pollution Control Board


                                                 .....Petitioner.

                        Versus



M/s B.S. International and others

                                                 .....Respondents.


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK


Present:    Mr, Lalit Rishi, Advocate for
            Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate
            for respondent No.2 and 3.

                  ***

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Jalandhar, whereby the revision petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed on account of delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition.

The brief facts, necessary for disposing of the short issued involved in the present case, are that the petitioner filed the complaint under Sections 43, 44 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, against the Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009 2 respondents herein. The complaint No. 164/2/94 is appended as Annexure P-1. The stand taken by the respondents was that their firm stood closed six years prior to the alleged offence committed by them. This stand was taken by the respondents vide Annexure P-2. Based on the above, the petitioner-Board decided to consider the request of the respondents for withdrawal of the complaint, which is depicted from the communication dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure P-3).

It is the further case set up by the petitioner-Board that although the request of the respondents for withdrawal of the complaint was under consideration but the charge had been framed against the respondents in the complaint (Annexure P-1). On 2.6.2006, when the case was fixed before the learned trial court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant and the learned trial court, while referring to the observations made in the communication (Annexure P-3), that since the offence was compoundable, dismissed the complaint and the accused were ordered to be discharged. This order dated 2.6.2006 is appended as Annexure P-4.

Dissatisfied with the above said order, petitioner- complainant Board filed its revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide Annexure P-5. However, since there was a delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the revision petition, was also filed, vide Annexure P-6. However, learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009 3 also the criminal revision petition, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-7), observing therein that the complainant- Board failed to give sufficient cause and reasons explaining the delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, passed the impugned order dismissing the revision petition, as barred by limitation without going into merits of the case.

Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders, complainant-Board as approached this Court by way of instant petition.

Notice of motion was issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that impugned order was not sustainable in law because the revision petition before the learned Session Judge was not hopelessly time barred. It was delayed only by three days. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, ought not to have dismissed the revision petition solely because of delay of three days. Instead, the revision petition ought to have been decided on merits of the case. He also contended that no prejudice, as such, has been shown to have been caused to the respondents-accused because of the delay of three days in filing the revision petition, nor the petitioner was going to gain anything in delaying the matter. Since the order (Annexure P-4) was passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar, in the absence of the complainant-Board, the learned Sessions Judge has fell into serious error of law while passing the impugned order, dismissing the revision petition only because of the delay of three days and not deciding the same on merits.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Since the petitioner-Board miserably failed to show any cause, explaining the delay of three days in filing the revision petition, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rightly dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was liable to be upheld.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to prevent the abuse of process of law and also to secure the ends of justice. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

It is the settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice, which are meant to be followed for advancing the cause of justice. No doubt, the law of limitation is indeed an important law on the statute book. It is in furtherance of the sound public policy to put a quietus to disputes or grievances of which resolution and redressal are not sought within the prescribed time. The law of limitation is intended to allow things to finally settle down after a reasonable time and not to let everyone live in a state of uncertainty. It does not permit any one to raise claims that are very old and stale and does not allow anyone to approach the higher tiers of the judicial system for correction of the lower court's Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009 5 orders or for redressal of grievances at one's own sweet will. However, at the same time, the Courts are also expected to proceed with a pragmatic and liberal approach. No straight jacket formula can be and should be laid down in this regard, leaving it open to the Courts to decide the cases as per the peculiar fact situation obtaining in a given case. Courts have to keep in mind the basic and fundamental princple of law that justice is not only to be done but it seems to have been done.

Further, whenever the technicalities of law and substantive justice are pitted against each other, it is always the substantive justice, which is to prevail and the technicalities of law must give way to the substantive justice.

Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in view, this Court is of this confirm opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is not sustainable in law.

Firstly, the delay was only of three days. It was not an old and stale matter. Secondly, the order which was being challenged in the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, had been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the absence of the petitioner-Board.

Thirdly, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the ground realities of life expecting the strict explanation for each day, from the petitioner-Board, which is a government agency. It was not an individual who was to pursue the litigation. Before filing the revision petition in the court of learned Sessions Judge, requisite sanction was to be sought from the competent authority. It was so Criminal Misc. No. M-34416 of 2009 6 pleaded in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as noted by the learned Sessions Judge in para 7 of the impugned order that time was consumed for obtaining the sanction of the competent authority.

Another question that falls for consideration of this Court would be the scope of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not unlimited but at the same time, there is no denying to the fact that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide enough and are meant to be exercised for preventing the abuse of process of the Court and securing the ends of justice. It has been so settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in long series of judgments and the recent one, in this regard, is State of Punjab versus Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 126.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, suffers from patent illegality.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-7), is set aside. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, moved by the petitioner, is allowed. Delay of three days in filing the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is condoned. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for deciding the revision of the petitioner Board, afresh on merits of the case.

Owing to the peculiar fact situation of the present case, learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is directed to make endeavour to decide the case at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.7.2012 AK Sharma