H.P. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs. NU-CHEM INDUSTRIES PAONTA SAHIB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan in Criminal Appeal No. 19 -N/10 of 1989 dated September 2, 1989 whereby the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (II), Paonta Sahib dated March 21, 1989 has been set aside.

(2.) Himachal Pradesh State Board of Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (hereafter 'Pollution Board') filed a complaint under Sec. 39 of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981 (hereafter 'Air Pollution Act') against the accused complaining that accused -1 is an industry engaged in the production of lime while accused -2 is the Managing Director and incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, operating since October, 1983. It is a specified industry under the Air Pollution Act within the air pollution control area, but was operating without the previous consent of the Pollution Board as required under Sec. 21 of the Air Pollution Act. On this complaint, the accused were summoned. Accused Niraj Gupta appeared and accusation was put to him on September 5, 1986 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, complainant examined P.J.S. Dadhwal (PW -1), Yash Pal Verma (PW -2) and R.R. Gautam (PW -3). Certain documents were also filed in support of the allegation.

(3.) The accused was examined under Sec. 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the case against him and stated that the industry was not causing any air pollution so a false complaint has been filed against him. Accused Niraj Gupta also, appeared as a witness (DW -1). The trial Court examined whether the complainant had proved that the accused was operating the industrial plant specified in the Schedule of Air Pollution Act, within the air pollution control area, without the previous consent of the Pollution Board as required under Sec. 21 of the Air Pollution Act. It held that the complainant had been able to prove that the accused was operating the unit since 1983, which was specified in the Schedule, in an air pollution control area, without obtaining prior consent of the complainant.Accordingly, accused -1 (Sic. accused -2?) was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 400/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.