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.
State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr FIR No. 85/00 U/sec. 188/284 IPC sec. 41 Water(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Pollution Act PS: Gandhi Nagar Date of institution of case: 02.06.2000 Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved Date on which judgment is delivered: 28.01.2015 Unique I. D. No. 02402R0004832000 JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 96/02
b) Date of commission of the offence : 16.04.2000
c) Name of the complainant : SDM
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : 1. Ved Prakash, S/o Sh. Padam Singh, R/o H. No. 9/4830, Gali No. 06, Old Seelampur, Delhi.
2. Sunder Singh (proceedings abated vide order dated 09.08.2012)
e) Offence complained of or offence proved : Sec. 188/284 IPC & 41 Water (Prevention & Control of FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 1 of 6 State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr Pollution) Act, 1974
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of such order : 28.01.2015
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Maili Yamuna' case has directed to stop the polluting industries from operating in the NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, all the water polluting units located in industrial and non-conforming areas of Delhi were directed through public notices in Newspapers on 15/16th September, 1999 and 14th October, 1999 to put up individual effluent treatment plant for treating their effluent prior to discharging it on or before 1st November, 1999 so as to meet the prescribed standard of Central Pollution Control Board. On 02.03.2000, the Vigilance Squad constituted by the Govt., of NCT of Delhi and the team of Environment Engineers of Delhi Pollution Control Committee found discharge of untreated effluents in the factories of the accused persons and therefore, sealed their factories. On 16.04.2000, the then SDM received a telephonic call that the above stated factories which had been sealed on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have started functioning illegally. Therefore, the present FIR bearing no.85/2000 was registered against the accused persons and the investigation was carried out.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial and FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 2 of 6 State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to them as per the norms.
Thereafter, the charge u/sec 188/284 IPC and sec. 41 Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
However, during the course of trial, accused-Sunder Singh expired therefore proceedings against him were dropped as 'abated'. With a view to connect the accused Ved Prakash with the crime, the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses.
PW1/ASI Sunita Kumari was the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR bearing no. 85/2000/Ex. PW1/A.
PW2/Head Constable Brij Pal has proved the DD Entry No. 28A dated 15.04.2000 as Ex.PW2/A.
PW3/Constable Vinod Kumar had accompanied the IO during the investigation. He took the rukka to the Police Station and got the FIR registered against the accused persons. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and the FIR to the IO. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused persons and conducted the personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively.
However, the ld. Counsel for the accused Ved Prakash, in the midst of the prosecution evidence, has moved an application on behalf of the accused to plead guilty.
It is no more res-integra that an accused can plead guilty at any stage of trial and in this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra etc vs. Sukhdeo Singh and FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 3 of 6 State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr Anr 1992 AIR 2100=1992 SCR (3) 480.
I have explained the consequences of pleading guilty and the allegations leveled by the prosecution in vernacular to the accused, however, the accused has reiterated his plea of guilt and has stated that he is pleading guilty without any force, pressure or undue influence and that he has understood the allegations. I am of the considered view that the accused has understood the nature of the allegations levelled against him and that plea of guilt is made voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence after understanding the allegations, hence the same is accepted. Accordingly, the accused Ved Prakash, in view of the statements recorded separately, is held guilty and convicted for the offence charged with. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in open Court on 28th day of January, 2014 (Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 28.01.2015 This judgment contains 04 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 28.01.2015 FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 4 of 6 State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 85/00 PS Gandhi Nagar 28.01.2015 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict in person with Counsel Shri Rajender Kumar.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Ld. Counsel for the convict has submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence as he is the first time offender; is repenting for his act; has already suffered much agony on account of protracted trial and Damocles' Sword has been hanging on his head for about fourteen years.
Per contra, it is submitted by the ld. APP for the State that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, which he had committed, he does not deserve any leniency or sympathy from the court.
I have heard the arguments and perused the file very carefully.
While I agree that water pollution is a serious offence which must be visited with exemplary punishment. But in the instant case, the offence was committed in the year 2000 i.e., more than fourteen years ago and the convict is repenting for his act. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that he is a previous convict and has committed any other offence whatsoever. Therefore, keeping in view the FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 5 of 6 State vs. Ved Prakash & Anr totality of the facts and circumstances in his favour, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the convict deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. The ends of justice would be met if he sentenced as under:
Convict is sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under section 41 of the Water Pollution Act. In default of fine, he shall undergo SI for two months;
Convict is sentenced to fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under section 188 IPC. In default of fine, he shall undergo SI for ten days; Convict is sentenced to fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under section 284 IPC. In default of fine, he shall undergo SI for ten days. Fine paid vide receipt number 321205.
Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Original documents, if any be handed over to the person entitled thereto after cancellation of endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 28.01.2015 FIR No. 85/2000 Page No. 6 of 6