IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. M. P. No. 1371 of 2012

            Manjot Singh                                      ...    ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                            ...     ... Opp. Party
                                  -----

            CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
                                  -----

            For the Petitioner     : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
            For the State          : A.P.P.
            For the Pollution Board: Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate
                                   -----

5/02.04.2013

Heard the parties.

The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna filed a complaint case bearing C/1 Case No. 8 M/ 91 against the petitioner and M/s EMDET Jamshedpur Pvt. Ltd. through its Director - Manjot Singh for commission of the offence under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging therein that the accused persons are manufacturing certain items for the use of Telco and in that process, it has been using the outlet for discharge of sewage and trade effluent without obtaining consent as required under Sections 25/26 of the said Act which is punishable under Section 44 of the said Act.

Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that after the case was lodged, the court without taking cognizance of the offence issued summon and then warrant of arrest as also process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Those orders when were challenged before the Revisional Court, it were set aside by the Revisional Court. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensation of personal attendance which was rejected. However, that order was challenged and the prayer for dispensation of personal attendance was allowed by this Court. Thereupon, when it was noticed that the court is proceeding with the matter without taking cognizance of the offence, the instant application has been filed, wherein specific plea has been taken that the court has still not taken cognizance of the offence and without taking cognizance the court proceeded with the matter which is quite illegal and this fact is apparent from the order-sheet annexed with this application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that when a complaint was lodged by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, it was registered on 1.4.1991 which order or subsequent order never shows that the court has even taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. In spite of that, summon as well as warrant of arrest and even the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were issued for securing the attendance of the petitioner. However, those orders on being challenged were set aside but the fact remains that the court without taking cognizance of the offence proceeded with the matter which is evident from the order dated 28.5.2005/ 28.11.2005 whereby notices were ordered to be issued against the petitioner which is under challenge. The said orders in absence of any order taking cognizance can certainly be said to be bad.

Accordingly, those orders are hereby set aside with a direction to the court concerned to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Consequently, this application stands disposed of.

(R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT