U.S.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) THE petitioners by moving these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the proceedings pending before City Magistrate, Bareilly in Case Nos. 9 of 1992, 11 of 1992, 10 of 1992, 12 of 1992, 16 of 1992, 1 of 1992, 19 of 1992, 13 of 1992, 6 of 1992, 14 of 1992, 26 of 1992, 3 of 1992 and 18 of 1992.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated, are that the applicants in above petitions are engaged in business of preparation of 'RAAB' which is a concentrated form of "SHEERA" is done through open pan process and due to operation of Sheera Bhatti by the applicants and the use of husk of paddy and khoi of sugarcane as fuel in the said Bhatti it causes air pollution. Earlier Pollution Control Board had issued notice under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to show cause as to why directions contained in the Act may not be issued against them. They submitted reply to the above notice. In the meantime, the City Magistrate, Bareilly, being satisfied on the application of Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board initiated separate proceeding under Section 133, Cr.P.C. against the applicants and issued separate conditional order under Section 133(1)(a), Cr.P.C. requiring the applicant of each petition to stop Bhatti meant for preparation of "RAAB" or to appear before him to show cause why the order should not be made absolute. Aggrieved with the above conditional order, the applicants filed separate revisions before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. It was contended in the revision that parallel proceedings under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Criminal Procedure Code cannot take place and, therefore, the issuance of conditional order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was illegal. The learned Sessions Judge held that there is no bar for initiating proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. as well as proceedings under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act as causing air pollution is also a public nuisance. With these findings he dismissed the revision. Thereafter, the applicants preferred separate application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. as noted for quashing the proceeding under Section 133, Cr.P.C. pending before City Magistrate, Bareilly.
(3.) IN all the petitions facts of the case are same and a common question of law is involved. Therefore, all the petitions are disposed of by common order.;