:1:




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
           CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

     DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF JULY, 2013

                     BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

      CRIMINAL PETITION No.10449 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.    M/S GHATAPRABHA SAHAKARI SAKKARE
      KARKHANE NIYAMIT, SINGLAPUR,
      GOKAK TALUK, BELGAUM
      BU ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
      S M RANJANAGI

2.    S M RAJANAGI
      MANAGING DIRECTOR
      M/S GHATAPRABHA SAHAKARI
      SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT
      SINGLAPUR, GOKAK TALUK,
      BELGAUM
                                    ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. SHARAD V.MAGADUM ADV. FOR
      SRI.HEMANT R CHANDANGOUDAR ADV.)

AND:

      THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
      BOARD, HEAD OFFICE AT BANGALORE,
      REGIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM
      REPTD. BY ITS
                          :2:




     ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
     SRI PRADEEP S MAMDAPUR
                                   ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. M M HIREMATH ADV.)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1009/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 44 OF
WATER (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT,
1974 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC COURT, GOKAK.

    This   criminal    petition coming     on  for
Admission this day, the Court made the following:

                      O R D E R

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1009/2012 pending trial for an offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Board has issued consent order on 04.01.2013. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the afore- stated offences to issue process to petitioner. :3:

3. This submission is prima facie untenable in view of the fact that the process was issued to the petitioner on 19.06.2012. If the consent, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, has been issued by the Board, whether consent order would obliterate the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the trial court are matters for consideration on merits of the case. The accused can raise this contention before the trail court. The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE RK/-