HARBANS SINGH RAI,J - (1.) HARYANA State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution filed a complaining against the present respondents and one Shri L.M. Thapar, Managing Director of respondent No. 1, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagadhri on 16th October, 1981 under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (herein after called the Act) for violating the provision of the said Act, as also under Section 33 of the Act for restraining them from discharging trade effluents which pollute water. The present respondents put in an application in the trial court on 22nd September, 1982, to the effect that the complaint was not maintainable on a number of grounds. Shri P.L. Ahuja Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagadhri dismissed the application vide order dated 22nd November, 1982.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision in the Court of Session. Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide his order dated 15th November, 1984, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial Court. It is against this order that the Haryana State Board has filed this petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, has upset the well-reasoned order to the trial Court mainly on the ground that no sanction for the prosecution of the respondents as envisaged 49(1) of the Act was obtained and so, the complaint was not competent. Section 49(1) of the Act reads as under :- "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of the State Board, and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act." The complaint was filed by the State Board, and a careful reading of the section clearly shows that when a complaint is filed by the State Board, no sanction is required. Cognizance can be taken either on a complaint filed by the State Board itself, or with the previous sanction of the State Board if the complaint is not filed by the State Board itself. In the present case when the complainant is not filed by the State Board itself. In the present case when the complainant is the State Board itself, the question of sanction does not arise. It appears that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act were not brought to the notice of the Additional Sessions Judge, otherwise he would not have accepted the revision solely on the ground that there was no sanction of the Board obtained. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the sanction was not required for taking cognizance against the respondents.
(3.) FOR the foregoing, reasons, the revision is accepted, order dated 15th November, 1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for proceedings in the matter in accordance with law.;