- (1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. 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 No. 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 peti tions, briefly stated, are that the applicants in above petitions are engaged in business of preparation of "raab" which is a con centrated form of "sheera" is done through open pan process and due to operation of Sheera Bhatti by the ap plicants 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 direc tions 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 the Regional Officer, U. P. Pollution Control Board initiated separate proceeding under Section 133 Cr. PC. 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 condi tional 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 condi tional order under Section 133 Cr. P. C. was illegal. The learned Sessions Judge held that there is no bar for initiating proceed ings under Section 133 Cr. P. C. as well as proceeding 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. PC. as noted for quashing the proceeding under Section 133 Cr. P. C. pending before City Magistrate, Bareilly. 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.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar petitions which came before Hon'ble I. M. Quddusi, J. for hearing the petitions were finally disposed of with certain observa tion and the facts of the present petitions are same and therefore, these petitions be also disposed of with the same direction. The learned counsel for the opposite par ties had also perused the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12962 of 1992 decided on 18-11-1997 and did not raise any objection.;