Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 44 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 43 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 25 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Zonal Officer M.P. Pollution ... vs M/S Maheshwari Industries And ... on 2 September, 2015
                                             --1--



                                  CRA No.785/2013

02.09.2015
                  Shri Balkrishna Upadhyay, learned counsel for the

             appellant.

                  Shri P.V. Namjoshi, learned counsel for the

             respondents.

Heard on I.A. No.6318/2015, an application for abatement of State appeal due to death of respondent No.2

- Madanlal Maheshwari/accused.

Present appeal has been preferred by M.P. Pollution Control Board against the judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed by C.J.M., Ujjain in Criminal Case No.233/2005 acquitting the respondent No.2 of charges under section 43 and 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as well as section 25 of Pollution Control Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole proprietor of M/s. Maheshwari Industries, Ujjain namely

--2--

Madanlal Maheshwari has died on 02.12.2014 hence, none remains there for execution of jail sentence at least.

Learned counsel for the appellant Pollution Board submits that true it is that by virtue of death of the respondent, material part of cause of action has come to an end for all practical purposes however for the sake of name, properitor firm remains in existence against whom action can be continued.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submits that entire partnership as such has also come to an end and nothing is surviving on behalf of the partnership also on the scene of occurrence.

Considering the aforesaid, in considered opinion of this court, nothing survives in the matter against the respondents because death of the sole accused has finally decided this matter practically for all purposes.

--3--

Accordingly, I.A. is allowed and the appeal stands dismissed as abated.

Certified copy as per rules.

(T.K. Kaushal) Judge Sourabh