0

        IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
    ACMM (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL DISTRICT: THC: DELHI

                                             CC No. 524317/2016
                                       DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar

JUDGEMENT

(a)Date of commission of offence : 17.07.1998

(b)Name of complainant : Sh. I.K. Kapila Delhi Pollution Control Committee, (Sr.Environmental Engineer), IVth Floor, ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

(c)Name, parentage, residence : Sh. Narender Kumar Prop/occupier M/s NNK Leather, 26Q9, Block, Mangolpuri, New Delhi.

(d)Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 24/25/26/33A, punishable U/s 41, 42,43,44 of the water (prevention & Control of pollution)Act, 1974.

(e)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

(f)Final order                           : Convicted

(h)Date of such order                     : 07.11.2016

Date of institution of complaint : 04.01.1999 Date of Reservation of Judgment : 07.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 07.11.2016 CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 0 of 9 1 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-

1. The complainant i.e Delhi Pollution Control Committee (in short DPCC) filed the present complaint against the accused Narender Kumar (Proprietor of M/s NNK Leather) through Sh. I.K. Kapila, the then Sr.EE.

2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is presently working as Senior Environmental Engineer in DPCC and is a Public Servant by virtue of section 50 of the water Act 1974 (hereinafter called "Act"). It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant is authorised to file the complaint by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee.

3. It is further stated in the complaint that on 17 th of July 1998, the official of DPCC visited the premises at Nihar Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi and found that the accused was having control over the affairs of M/s NNK Leather and the said unit was engaged in wet blue tanning an discharging trade effluent without any treatment facilities. It is further stated in the complaint that the officer of DPCC also found that the owner/occupier of the said unit has not taken any permission as required by Section 25 of the Act, 1974.

4. It is further stated in the complainant that by running a tannery unit and engaging in wet blue tanning and discharging trade effluent without proper treatment and without any consent as required under the Act, respondents / accused has violated the provisions of section 24 and 25 of the Act, which CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 1 of 9 2 are punishable under Section 42 and 43 of the Act.

5. It is further stated in the complainant that by discharging sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land, respondent/accused has violated the Provision of Section 26 of the Act and the same is punishable U/s 44 of the Water Act.

6. It is further stated in the complaint that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.W.P. No. 4677 of 85 has ordered closure of tanning activity being " H" category as per M.P.D. 2001 in NCT of Delhi and shall shift out of NCT of Delhi.

7. It is further stated in the complaint that the industry run by Sh. Narender Kumar comes under " H" category as per Master Plan 2001 and as per Central Pollution Control Board Criteria which were accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

8. It is further stated in the complaint that despite service of the directions issued U/s 33-A of the Act, 1974, upon the respondent/accused, he continued with his illegal activities and violating the directions U/s 33(A) accused has committed an offence U/s 41 of the Water Act, 1974. Hence, the present complaint.

9. After taking cognizance, accused Narender was summoned being the Proprietor of M/s. NNK Leather. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for arguments on charge. It CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 2 of 9 3 is a matter of record that vide order dated 16.02.2000, a charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the Act. It is also a matter of record that thereafter, matter was adjourned for CE. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 03.10.2002, case was transferred to some other court by the order of Ld. CMM and vide order dated 08.11.2002, the matter was adjourned for pre-charge evidence. Although, the case should not have been fixed for pre-charge evidence. Even otherwise, charge also should not have been framed without leading pre-charge evidence as it is a warrant trial case. But fact remains the same that clock cannot be put back. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 01.11.2006 again the matter was adjourned for post-charge evidence. It is also a matter of record that again case was transferred on 02.06.2012 before some other Court and vide order dated 03.07.2012, matter was again adjourned for pre-charge evidence.

10. Thereafter, one witness P.S. Pankaj was examined and discharged It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 04.04.2013, Dr. B.M.S. Reddy was substituted as AR in place of Mr. I.K. Kapila and matter was again adjourned for pre-charge evidence. Thereafter, Sh. B.M.S.Reddy was examined and discharged on 29.07.2013 and on that date, pre-charge evidence was closed and matter was adjourned for arguments on charge and on 23.08.2013, charge was again framed against the accused. Hence, there are various technical lacunas in the present case. However, none of the parties have CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 3 of 9 4 stated that they have suffered due to these technical lacunas.

11. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 07.02.2014, Dr. B.M.S. Reddy was examined as CW-1, cross examined and discharged in post-charge evidence and matter was again adjourned for remaining post-charge evidence.

12. Thereafter, P.S. Pankaj was examined on 27.03.2014 and he could not be cross examined by the accused and accordingly, post-charge evidence was closed and matter was adjourned for SA. Thereafter, matter went to mediation cell but could not be settled there. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 27.01.2016, the application of the accused U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW Sh. P.S. Pankaj was allowed. Accordingly, Sh. P.S. Pankaj was cross examined by the accused.

13. Statement of accused was recorded. In his statement accused denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.

14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the relevant records. I have also gone through the relevant provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 4 of 9 5

15. The relevant provisions of section 24/25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 are reproduced for ready reference:-

24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, -

(a)no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any [stream or well or sewer or on land], or

(b)no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.

25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharge - [(1) Subject to this provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, -

i. establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or ii. begin to make any new discharge of sewage

26. Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent. - Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a [stream or well or sewer or on land], the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 5 of 9 6 notification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section [shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Govt. by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette].

16. Complainant has to prove that accused was engaged in wet blue tanning and discharging trade effluent without any treatment facility and accused has also not taken any permission as required in the Act. Complaint has to further prove that accused has also discharged sewage or trade effluent into a strain or well or sewage.

17. To support its case, complainant has examined two witnesses i.e. Dr. B.M.S. Reddy Senior Environment Engineer and Sh. P.S. Pankaj, Environment Engineer.

18. CW-1 Sh. B.M.S. Reddy has duly proved the inspection report dated 17.07.1998 and closer directions are Ex. CW-1/A. An inspection dated 16.09.1998 which was carried out by him is Ex. CW-1/B. This witness has also proved the complaint Ex. CW-1/C. This witness has specifically deposed that CPCB has also categorized the activity of accused unit as hazardous in the criteria for industry classification. This witness has specifically deposed that accused was engaged in the activity of tanning of leather which is highly water polluting and was placed under "H" category of Delhi Master Plan, 2001. This witness has specifically deposed that unit of accused was in operation without mandatory consent as required under the Act.

CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 6 of 9 7

19. Another witness Sh. P.S. Pankaj has also corroborated the testimony of Dr. B.M.S. Reddy. As per his testimony, an inspection of NNK Leather was conducted on 17.07.1998 and from the inspection, it was gathered that accused was carrying on the activity of tannery and the said activity is categorized as "H" category which is not permitted in Delhi.

20. Hence, both witnesses have specifically deposed that vide inspection dated 17.07.1998, the unit of accused was found violating the provisions of the water Act. Hence, both the witnesses are corroborating each other on material facts. Both witnesses were cross-examined by the accused. Various suggestions were given in the cross-examination which were denied by the witnesses. Dr. B.M.S.Reddy has specifically deposed in his cross examination that he had inspected the unit of the accused which he found that unit was in operation. This witness has specifically deposed in his cross-examination that unit was found in operation without mandatory consent under the Act. Sh. P.S. Pankaj has also specifically deposed in his cross-examination that the unit was not having the mandatory consent which is violation of provisions of Act and unit was involved in activity of tannery which itself is highly polluting activity and which falls under "H" category. It is to be kept in mind that document speaks itself. Complainant has duly proved the inspection dated 17.07.1998 which shows that accused has violated the provisions of the water Act. Both witnesses have passed the test of cross-examination. There is no material contradictions in their testimonies. I do not find CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 7 of 9 8 any reason to disbelieve the statement of witnesses. Both witnesses have duly supported the case of the complainant.

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the complainant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused. Accordingly, accused is held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under sections 41/42/43/44 of the Water Act, 1974 for the violation of Section 24/25/26 and 33(A) of Water Act, 1974.

(Deepak Wason) ACMM (Spl Acts): Central District Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Announced in open Court today i.e 7th of November, 2016.

CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 8 of 9 9 CC no.524317/2016  DPCC Vs. Narender Kumar Page 9 of 9