Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.A/3123/2008	 2/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

 


 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 3123 of 2008
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
 
 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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


 

GUJARAT
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

BHAGWATI
SILK MILLS & 2 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
SUNIL L MEHTA for the Appellant. 
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1
- 2. 
Mr. A.J.Desai, Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for respondent
no. 3. 
========================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/01/2010 

 

 
 
				ORAL
JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Surat, against the order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case no. 755 of 1988 whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Originally, the appellant-complainant had filed the complaint for the offence punishable under sections 24, 25, 43, 44 read with section 41(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

2. Brief facts of the complainant's case are that the appellant-original complainant had filed a criminal complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for violation of the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act which are punishable under sections 43 and 44 read with section 41(2) of the said Act.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, issued summons as well as warrant against opponent nos. 1 and 2, but the appellant failed to serve the warrant and summons upon the opponent nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, the appellant had also failed to furnish details of address of the accused and was not proceeding with the complaint. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat has dismissed the complaint of the appellant-original complainant on the ground of non-prosecution of the complaint.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sunil Mehta for the appellant. He has contended that the learned trial Judge has not considered the original facts of the case and just due to delay, the complaint has been dismissed. He has also contended that the learned trial Judge has committed a serious error in dismissing the complaint.

6. I have gone through the order passed by the trial court. I have perused the date of filing of the criminal complaint and the date of the order passed by the learned trial Judge. It appears that after a period of 20 years, the criminal complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, and that too, when the complainant has failed to give any explanation about addresses of the accused as well as for non-prosecution of the complaint after such a long period. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the trial court was completely justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant-original complainant.

7. I find that the finding of dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution recorded by the trial court is absolutely just and proper and in recording the said finding, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.

8. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the reasons given by the court below and hence find no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial court forthwith. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.

(Z.K.Saiyed,J) ***darji     Top