R/CR.A/564/2001                                   JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 of 2001



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

================================================================

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 ?

================================================================
    J V PANDYA LAW OFFICER O/B OF GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL
                        BOAD....Appellant(s)
                              Versus
    SATYAM INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES & 3....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BIREN A VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

                              Date : 13/03/2014


                             ORAL JUDGMENT

R/CR.A/564/2001 JUDGMENT The present appeal under sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Criminal Case No. 2550/1991 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar dated 18th May 1999 recording acquittal for the offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondent No.1 is the industry and respondents Nos. 2 & 3 are the responsible officers in- charge of the affairs of respondent No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.11.1990 when the officers of the complainant Gujarat Pollution Control Board visited the premises of respondent No.1 industry, it was found that affluent water was allowed to flow outside without any treatment resulting in the fertility of the land and also causing hazard to the public health which led to filing of the complaint culminating into the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 2550/91.

3. On the basis of the complaint the aforesaid case has been registered and the court below proceeded with the trial. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the respondents-original accused, the witnesses were examined and the statements of the respondents original accused were recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC.

4. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant as well as the learned advocate for the respondents accused, the court below recorded acquittal on appreciation of the material and evidence. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present appeal by the appellant Board.

5. Heard learned advocate Shri Biren Vaishnav for the appellant Page 2 of 3 R/CR.A/564/2001 JUDGMENT Board, learned advocate Shri GM Joshi for the respondents accused and learned APP Shri HK Patel for respondent No.4-State.

6. In view of the submissions and having regard to the reasons recorded for arriving at the findings and the conclusion, it cannot be said that the findings are erroneous, much less perverse, which would call for any interference in the present appeal. The court below, on appreciation of material and evidence, referred to the procedure required to be followed including the mandatory procedure in Rule 27 of the Gujarat Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1976. The court below has also referred to the aspect of taking of samples and the procedure followed and has recorded the findings referring to rule 27 of the Rules that the mandatory provision of the rule has not been followed. The court below has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this High Court reported in 1996 (2) GLH 138.

7. As it transpires from the observations, Rule 27 is mandatory and similar contentions have been dealt with with reference to Rule 27. Therefore, in light of the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, and also the observations made by the High Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case reported in 1996 (2) GLH 138, the findings cannot be said to be perverse which would call for any interference in the present appeal. This court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the court below on appreciation of material and evidence.

8. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) (hn) Page 3 of 3