- Case
- P.A.PAREKH and ANR. v. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD and ANR. (Bombay High Court, 02-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
Facts: Shree P.A. Parekh and Shree M. Chattarji, Directors of M/s. Guj Petro Chem Private Limited, were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 44 read with 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, for discharging effluent that did not conform to prescribed standards. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) initiated prosecution after a sample collected from the company's effluent outlet was found to be highly polluting. The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction.
Procedural Posture: The applicants, the original accused, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had confirmed their conviction by the Trial Court.
Issue: Whether the conviction of the applicants under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, can be sustained given the alleged procedural irregularities in the collection and analysis of effluent samples, the omnibus nature of the sanction for prosecution, and the lack of specific averments regarding the individual roles of the directors in the complaint?
Holding: The High Court allowed the Revision Application and quashed the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, setting aside the conviction of the applicants.
Reasoning: The Court found several infirmities in the prosecution's case. Firstly, there was a breach of Section 21(3)(e) of the Act, as the mandatory option to send the second part of the effluent sample to a laboratory specified by the occupier was not given. The Court emphasized that Section 21 prescribes a procedure that "needs to be followed scrupulously". Secondly, the sanction for prosecution was deemed an "omnibus sanction" lacking specific details for the indictment of the company or its officers. Thirdly, the complaint lacked specific averments detailing the individual roles of the directors in the alleged offense, relying merely on their positions in the company. The Court cited a judgment stating, "liability arises on account of the conduct, act or omission on the part of the person and not merely on account of the office that he is holding". Finally, the Court noted that the renewal of consent to operate, granted to the company after the resolution for prosecution was passed, cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case.
