- (1.) On account of the fact that as the identical question of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, recapitulated from main petition (1) CRM No. M-13202 of 2010 titled as N.S.Brar, PCS, ExAdministrator, Municipal Council, Abohar Vs. Punjab Pollution Control Board, Nabha Road, Patiala , would be referred in subsequent part of this judgment for ready reference in this context.
(2.) Tersely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present petitions and emanating from the record, are that the complainant-respondent Punjab Pollution Control Board (for brevity the complainant-Board ) filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3) against the petitioners-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 24 to 26 read with Sections 43, 47 & 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ).
(3.) The case set up by the complainant-Board in the complaint, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the Municipal Council (for short the MC ), Abohar did not instal any sewage treatment plant to treat the sewage discharge and since it has constructed a disposal work for collection and pumping of the sewage/sullage of the city for further discharging into the lined channel, so, it has violated the provisions of the Act and committed the indicated offences. As the petitionersaccused were stated to be directly responsible, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted for the pointed offences. Inter-alia, in the background of these allegations, the complainant-Board filed the criminal complaint (Annexure P3) against the petitioners-accused for the commission of the offences in question.;