Allowed

N.S. Brar v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CRM-M/13202/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitions seeking quashing of criminal complaints and summoning orders under Section 482 CrPC against public servants accused of offences under the Water Act. The court held prosecution without Section 197 sanction is invalid.

What did the court decide?

Impugned complaints and summoning orders are quashed. Complainant permitted to file fresh complaints after obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

N.S. Brar Vs Punjab Pollution Control Board — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM Nos.13202 of 2010 alongwith 3 connected petitions -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1. Criminal Misc. No. M-13202 of 2010

¶4

N.S.Brar, PCS, Ex-Administrator, Municipal Council, Abohar ....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab Pollution Control Board, Nabha Road, Patiala ...Respondent

¶7

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-4633 of 2011

¶8

Babu Ram Arya, Ex-President, Municipal Council, Abohar & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Punjab Pollution Control Board, Nabha Road, Patiala ...Respondent

¶11

3. Criminal Misc. No. M-5093 of 2011

¶12

Shiv Raj Goyal son of Dr.Ram Kumar, President, Municipal Council, Abohar

¶13

....Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Punjab Pollution Control Board, Nabha Road, Patiala ...Respondent

¶16

4. Criminal Misc. No. M-5368 of 2011

¶17

Davinder Kumar Goyal, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jalalabad

¶18

....Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Punjab Pollution Control Board, Nabha Road, Patiala ...Respondent

¶21

Date of Decision:-16.5.2012

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶23

Present :- S/Shri Sandeep Khunger and Balram Singh, Advocates for the petitioners.

¶24

S/Shri D.S.Patwalia & Rajesh Garg, Advocates for the respondent.

¶25

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

¶26

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

¶27

CRM Nos.13202 of 2010 alongwith 3 connected petitions -2-

¶28

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.

¶29

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”).

¶30

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.

¶31

Taking cognizance of the impugned complaints, the petitionersaccused were summoned to face the trial by the Magistrate, vide impugned summoning orders.

¶32

Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal prosecution, the petitionersaccused preferred the instant petitions to quash the impugned complaints and

¶33

CRM Nos.13202 of 2010 alongwith 3 connected petitions -3-

¶34

summoning orders, inter-alia on various grounds in general and absence of sanction to prosecute them under Section 197 Cr.PC in particular, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, .

¶35

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Nirmaljit Kaur, J.) passed the following order on May 6,2010:-

¶36

“ It is contended that earlier a complaint filed under Sections 24, 25, 26 read with Sections 43, 47 and Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was dismissed on 27.10.2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for want of prosecution. The restoration application was also dismissed. The petitioner was not made a party in that complaint. Thereafter, a second complaint was filed on the basis of same set of allegations but this time, the present petitioner was added as respondent No.3, whereas, the present petitioner remained as Administrator only for a period of three years i.e. From 25.03.2008 to 14.03.2008 and the complaint is of the year 2009 and concerns the sample collected on 07.07.2000 and from 16.04.2001 to 03.07.2002. It is further stated that the petitioner is a public servant and sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C, which is mandatory, has not been obtained.

¶37

Notice of motion for 26.07.2010.

¶38

Meanwhile, further proceedings qua the present petitioner shall remained stayed.”

¶39

At the very outset, it is not a matter of dispute that all the petitionersaccused are/were public servants at the relevant time and the complainant-Board did not obtain any sanction from the competent authority to prosecute them under Section 197 Cr.PC.

¶40

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the petitioners-accused (public servants) can be prosecuted without sanction or not?

¶41

Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the negative.

¶42

As is evident from the record that, according to the complainantBoard, the petitioners-accused have violated the provisions of the Act while

¶43

CRM Nos.13202 of 2010 alongwith 3 connected petitions -4-

¶44

discharging their official duties. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that petitioner N.S.Brar, PCS, remained Administrator of the MC Abohar for a short period. He is presently posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa and Davinder Kumar Goyal was the Executive Officer, whereas the remaining petitioners were also public servants at the relevant time. Once it is claimed that the petitionersaccused have violated the provisions of the Act while discharging their official duties, in that eventuality, they are legally entitled to the umbrella of protection under Section 197 Cr.PC in this regard.

¶45

As indicated earlier that since no sanction has been obtained to prosecute the petitioners-accused, so, no cognizance could be taken and they cannot be summoned to face the trial for the offences in question, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and others 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 456 and Raghunath Anant Govilkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1042.

¶46

Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the complainantBoard acknowledged the legal position and fairly submitted that the impugned complaints & summoning orders be quashed with the permission to complainantBoard to file fresh complaints after obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute the accused.

¶47

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned complaints and summoning orders are hereby quashed in this relevant direction.

¶48

Needless to mention that the complainant-Board would be at liberty to file fresh complaints on the same cause of action after obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC to prosecute the petitioners-accused.

¶49

16.5.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

N.S. Brar v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S. Brar v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Alias Raju Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ranu Rani and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Astha and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.