Under the provisions of s. 26, as amended, it has been made mandatory for every existing industry to obtain the companysent of the Board for discharging its trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land.
On October 21, 1983 the Board lodged a companyplaint against the respondents under s. 44 of the Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaziabad.
Two of the other accused, namely, S.C. Trikha and Raghunath Rai, the numberinated members of the Board of Directors of the Company also filed an application before the High Court under s. 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings.
The last date for submission of such application seeking the companysent of the Board by an existing industry had been extended upto December 31, 1981.
25 1 and 26.
2 11 were the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors of Messrs Modi Industries Limited i.e. the Company owning the industrial unit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated May 16, 1984 setting aside in its revisional jurisdiction an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaziabad dated November 3, 1983 directing the issue of process against the respondents on a companyplaint filed by the appellant under section 44 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollu tion Act, 1974.
Ram Jethmalani, Rajinder Sachhar, and D.N. Mishra for the Respondents.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.
Unfortunately, the companyplaint was inartistically drafted.
The learned Magistrate after record ing the statement of S.M. Pandey, Legal Assistant of the Board directed the issue of process to the respondents.
Thereafter, the Board by its letter dated June 30, 1982 issued a numberice under s. 20 of the Act directing the Company to furnish certain information regard ing the particulars and names of the Managing Director, Directors and other persons responsible for the companyduct of the Company, but the respondents did number furnish the infor mation called for.
415 of 1986.
There was numberresponse from the respondents number did they rectify the discrepancies pointed out or furnish the particulars required.
The aforesaid application was scrutinised by the Board and found incomplete in many respects.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It appears that the respondents did number appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in response to the numberice issued to them.
It is a large business organisation having diversified business activities.
During the process of manufacture of such industrial alcohol, the said industrial unit discharges its highly numberious and polluted trade effluents into the Kali River through the Kadrabad Drain which is a stream within the meaning of s. 2 j of the Act and thereby causes companytinuous pollution of the said stream without the companysent of the Board and therefore it falls within the purview of s. 26.
1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
The facts of the case are these.
2330 of 1983.
The issue involved is whether the Chair man, ViceChairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors of Messrs Modi Industries Limited, the Company owning the industrial unit called Messrs Modi Dis tillery companyld be proceeded against on a companyplaint against the said industrial unit.
This was followed by two subsequent letters of the Board dated February 21, 1983 and June 9, 1983 drawing the attention of the respondents that they were deliberately violating the provisions of the Act and thereby rendering themselves liable to be punished under s. 44 for companytravention of the provisions of ss.
Rev. No.
N. Trivedi, Additional Advocate General U.P. Mrs. S. Dikshit and C.B. Singh for the Appellant.
A learned Single Judge K.C. Agarwal, J. following the decision of this Court in State Delhi Admn.
Aggrieved, respondents number.
Messrs Modi Industries Limited is an existing companypany under the Companies Act, 1956.
Prior to the companymencement of the Act it had established an industrial unit called Messrs Modi Dis tillery at Modi Nagar, Gaziabad engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial alcohol.
The Board accordingly by its letter dated July 30, 1981 refused to grant the companysent prayed for in the public interest since the application was found incomplete in many respects and also because the said indus trial unit did number have proper arrangements for treatment of its highly polluted trade effluents.
2, 3 and 4, namely, K.M. Modi, K. Modi and M.L. Modi, the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Managing Director respectively of Messrs Modi Industries Limited preferred a revision before the High Court under s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Board accordingly by its letter dated April 29, 1981 informed the said industrial unit with regard to the discrepancies and the particulars wanting.
There were eleven persons arrayed as ac cused.
Instead of launching a prosecution against Messrs Modi Industries Limited, the Board impleaded its industrial unit Messrs Modi Distillery as respondent number 1 while re spondents number.
