Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 25 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 468 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 471 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2567/2013 on 28 February, 2014
Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta
28/02/2014                           CRR 2567 of 2013
GB


                  Ms. M. Chowdhury
                  Mr. T. Saraf
                        For the Petitioner



The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying for quashing the FIR being No. 380/2009 dated 12.11.09 of Baranagar P. S., Dist. 24 Pgs(South). It appears during hearing that the senior Law Officer of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board lodged a complaint to said Police Station alleging that the present petitioner being Director of M/s. Sanyam Tieup (Pvt.) Ltd. used forged documents, namely, 'Consent to Establish'( NOC) and 'Consent to Operate' which were alleged to be issued under Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It was also specifically alleged in said complaint that said documents were procured by the present petitioner through one Manas Chakrabortyof M/s. Vishal Sales. During hearing it is submitted that the present petitioner was not aware that those documents were forged one. It may be defence during trial but this cannot be ground for quashing the FIR which has already culminated into filing of a charge sheet after investigation. During hearing it is further submitted that no case under Sections 468 and 471 of the Cr. P. C. was made out either in the FIR or during investigation.

I am not at all convinced to the submissions made on this point. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all the defences taken in this application during hearing in the court below. The application praying for quashing the proceeding is dismissed.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

( Tarun Kumar Gupta, J)