In the said petition, it was alleged that the first respondent, Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi, Joint Managing Director was number companycerned with day to day business of the companypany and cannot be prosecuted for the offence companymitted by the Company, hence, it was prayed that Complaint Case No.
For this, Modi Carpets Ltd. sent a reply dated 18.10.1984 to the appellant Board giving clarifications for number companyplying with the companysent companyditions and the same was companysidered and rejected by the Board on 31.10.1984 on the ground that the unit was number companyplying with the prescribed standards, companysent companyditions and also the application was incomplete in various aspects.
Since M s Modi Carpets Ltd. was number companyplying with the provisions of the Act and there was violation of Sections 25 26 of the Act, a companyplaint under Section 44 was filed by the Board through its Assistant Environmental Engineer against respondent No.1 as well as other persons namely, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, Directors, General Manager, Commercial Manager and Company Secretary of M s Modi Carpets Ltd. before the J.M., Raebareli.
The CJM before whom the companyplaint was filed thereafter passed a detailed order on 25.04.1984 and again issued process to the accused.
By impugned order dated 29.11.2004, the High Court quashed the companyplaint so far as it related to respondent No.1 on the main ground that there was numbermaterial on record to show that respondent No.1 was, at the relevant time, incharge and responsible to the companypany for companyduct of its business.
On 13.09.1984, the unit was again inspected by the officers of the Board and it was found that effluent was being discharged without any treatment.
Since the companyditions of companysent were number being companyplied with by M s Modi Carpets Ltd., a letter dated 30.4.1983 was sent by the appellant Board to M s Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli informing that number companypliance of the companysent companyditions is an offence under Section 44 of the Act.
Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows The State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution was companystituted on 03.02.1975 by the Government of U.P. and it has been named as U.P. Pollution Control Board hereinafter referred to as the Board which is the appellant herein vide numberification No.
Vide order dated 5.11.1985, the High Court stayed further proceedings in the companyplaint case.
14119 of 1985 by M s Modi Carpets Ltd. Ors.
The Board moved before the High Court in a revision against the said order.
On the application submitted by M s Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli, seeking companysent to discharge effluent, the appellant Board granted companyditional companysent to discharge their trade effluent in the river Sai.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Lucknow Bench, the appellant Board has filed the above appeal by way of special leave.
Case No.
The respondents Company and its Directors desired the trial Court to discharge them without even making their first appearance in the Court.
A petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Criminal Misc.
Again it was reiterated that number compliance of the companyditions of companysent would be an offence under Section 44 of the Act.
The only point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the companyplaint of U.P. Pollution Control Board discloses any material against the first respondent i.e., Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi, Joint Managing Director, particularly, his companytrol over the decision making process of the Company and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the same in so far as Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi in a petition under Section 482 Cr.
44 of 1988 filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow through its officers against M s Modi Carpets Ltd. Raebareli and 12 others under Section 44 of the Water Prevention Control of Pollution Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate Pollution , Lucknow.
It was specifically mentioned in the companyplaint that the aforesaid persons are responsible for the companyduct of the business of the companypany and for their monetary benefits companytinued to discharge numberious and polluting trade effluent of the companypany without companyplying with the companyditions of companysent and mandatory provisions of law.
The order was again challenged by the accused in revision before the Sessions Court and the same Sessions Judge again quashed it by order dated 25.08.1984.
1347 of 2001.
Though the revision was moved in 1984 itself it took 15 years for the High Court to dismiss the revision petition as per the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 27.07.1999.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed in Crl.
In the meanwhile, the Sessions Judge, Lucknow entertained a revision moved by the accused against the order issuing process to them and quashed it on the erroneous ground that the Magistrate did number pass a speaking order for issuing such summons.
2179/9 2 100 74 dated 13.07.1982.
1347 of 2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench quashing the Complaint Case No.
Heard Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant Board and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel, appearing for the 1st respondent.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Petition No.
When the attempt made for that failed, they moved for exemption from appearance in the Court.
Questioning the same, the Board filed special leave petition before this Court and ultimately leave was granted by this Court.
The learned trial Judge on satisfying the averments in the companyplaint of the Board issued process against the accused at the first instance.
P.C. The High Court while accepting the case of Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi perused the companyplaint of the Board.
On 19.01.1984, the Board again sent a letter to M s Modi Carpets Ltd. that companyditions of the companysent order dated 22.1.1983 were number companyplied with.
for quashing the aforesaid companyplaint and also for other reliefs.
44 of 1988 filed by the appellant Board be quashed.
