- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition un der Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 3-4-1986 passed by the C. J. M. , Mathura and also the order dated 15-10-1986 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura by which the Revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
(2.) KRISHNA Murari Sharma and Ravindra Nath Chaturvedi respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Criminal Complaint against the applicants for their prosecution under Sections 268. 278 and 290, IPC. Learned Magistrate after recording statement of KRISHNA Murari Sharma under Section 200, Cr PC passed the impugned order dated 3-4-1986 summoning the applicants to face trial. The allegations in the complaint, in brief, are that an Industrial area was es tablished by the U. P. State Industrial De velopment Corporation Ltd. at Mathura. It was the responsibility of the Corporation to make proper arrangements of Road and drainage in the industrial area. But the same was not done. A site which was ear marked for a park near the Police Outpost was made into a pond. A number of Saree Printing Units are functioning in the area. The dirty water flowing, out of the indus trial units as well as the rainy water gets accumulated in the pond and it is causing a lot of nuisance. On account of accumu lation of dirty water it has given rise to mosquitoes and foul smell causing health hazard to the persons working in the in dustrial units in the locality. The coloured water flowing out of the Saree Printing Units has affected the underground water as well and as a consequence thereof, the water being pumped by hand pumps has also got polluted. Due to these reasons, the workers of the industrial units have been aifected by diseases. The complain ant-Krishna Murari Sharma in this statement under Section 200, Cr PC cor roborated the version set out in the com plaint and stated that the coloured and dirty water of Saree Printing Units is get ting accumulated in the area which was ear-marked as a park and it is causing health hazards. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents by the order dated 1-12-1986 and the respondents put in appear ance in this Court on 27-2-1987. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed to con trovert the allegations made in the peti tion. I have heard Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the applicants at considerable length and have examined the record.
(3.) A perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant under Section 200. Cr PC would show that the main person responsible for flowing col oured and dirty water are the owners of Saree Printing Units. The polluted water flows out of ihe Saree Printing Units and gets accumulated in a low lying area which had been ear-marked for the pur pose of a park. The accused-applicants arc officers and employees of the U. P. Indus trial Development Corporation Ltd. and there is no allegation that they are in any manner responsible for discharging col oured and polluted water. There is only a general allegation that the Officers of the Corporation did not discharge their duty for making proper arrangements of drain age while developing the industrial site. The complaint has been filed under Sec tions 268, 278 and 290, IPC, Section 268, IPC provides that a person is guilty of a public nuisance who docs any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury to the public. Section 278, IPC provides that whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere so as to make it noxious to the health of the persons in the neighbourhood are liable to be punished. Section 290, IPC makes a general provi sion to the effect that whoever commits a public nuisance is liable to be punished. The allegations in the complaint do not show that any such specific act was done by the applicants which may make them liable under the aforesaid provisions of the Penal Code. There may be some adminis trative lapse on their part but that by itself cannot amount to a criminal offence. The real offenders appear to be the owners of Saree Printing Units who are discharging coloured and dirty water. There is another aspect of the case which deserves notice. The complaint was filed in March, 1986 impleading U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , Managing Director, Regional Man ager, Executive Engineer and Mukhya Pariyojna Adhikari of the Corporation as accused. No one has been impleaded by name. It is not clear as to when the indus trial area was established and who was responsible for construction of roads and drainage system at the releant time. If the prosecution is allowed to proceed now, the Officers who are now holding the office or the posts as mentioned in the complaint will have to face prosecution. Obviously during this long period, the concerned Officers must have been transferred. The complaint therefore, suffers from this technical defecl as it has not been filed against named persons but has been filed against the Officers of the Corporation.;