Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mark Bauer vs Karnataka State Pollution Control on 9 January, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (1) AKR 709
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2094 OF 2016
Between:
Mr.Mark Bauer
27300 West, 11 Mile Road,
Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48034,
United States of America. ...Petitioner
(By Shri Sajjan Poovayya, Senior Counsel for
Shri Anind Thomas, and
Shri Shravanth Arya Tandra, Advocates)
And:
Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board, Through its Member
Secretary, Parisara Bhavana, 1st to
5th Floor, 49, Church Street,
Bengaluru - 560 079. ...Respondent
(By Shri D.Nagaraj, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings including
the order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure-A) taking
Cognizance of the Criminal Complaint bearing
C.C.No.8343/2013 and issuing summons to the
accused based on complaint of the respondent
(Annexure-B) and all further proceedings in
C.C.No.8343/2013 pending on the file of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
2
This Petition coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard Sri Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sri Anind Thomas learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has failed to appear. The matter has been adjourned on three occasions expecting his appearance as the facts and circumstances, are such that the petition could be disposed of on merits even at this stage.
3. Therefore, even in the absence of counsel for the respondent, the petition is considered for final disposal.
4. The petitioner is said to be an U S National. It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner is the Manager of M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze India Limited. The allegation that the Company owns and operates a Factory situated at Yelahanka, Bengaluru, is an incorrect statement. The petitioner does not even 3 reside in India and he is not an employee of the company concerned, but he is a permanent resident of the United States of America, where he is gainfully employed and specializes in Environmental Health and Safety Practices in the United States of America. It is on the other hand, stated that the present management of the company had entered into a share purchase agreement with the erstwhile shareholders of the company.
5. The complaint is by the respondent - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. It is alleged by the complainant, which is a statutory body, that accused No.1, namely, M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze India Limited is a company within the meaning of Section 47 of The Water Act and has established two industrial units, M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., and M/s. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd., located adjacent to each other in the same premises at Yelahanka Bangalore Urban District and are engaged in the manufacture of Piston Rings of capacity of 4 19,00,000 per month Pistons of capacity 3,00,000 per month and Pistons pins of capacity of 2,40,000 per month and Steel Piston Rings of capacity 42,00,000 per month, respectively. The manufacturing process involves casting, heat treatment, trimming, binding, turning, machining degreasing, phosphating, Chrome plating and packing etc.
6. Accused No.2 namely one Rajesh Sinha is working as the Director (operations) in the Industry of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 is working as the Manager in the Industry of accused No.1. Accused No.2 viz., Rajesh Sinha, Director (Operations) & Manager of M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., was working in that capacity and accused No.3, who is the petitioner herein was visiting as a consultant. However, it is alleged in the complaint that he was the Manager of the Industry, which is incorrect. The petitioner as well as accused No.2 are in the management and in charge of the Company and in the conduct of the business are sought to be accused 5 of causing water pollution. In view of the complaint, samples of sewage were drawn and analyzed in the laboratory and it is said to have tested positive regarding sewage affluent and therefore, these proceedings proceeded against the petitioner before the Court.
7. It is in this background, that the petitioner is before this Court to emphasize that he is not the Manager of the Company and in this regard, he has produced Form No.2 in terms of Rules 4(1), 7(2) and 12 of the Factories Rules, which is the application for registration and grant of license and notice of occupation specified under Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act, which would clearly disclose that accused No.2 is indeed the Manager of the factory and that petitioner does not figure in the said application as the Manager. It is based on the said application that consent has been obtained for commencement of manufacture and therefore, on the basis of the same the mere presence of the petitioner 6 at the premises on the date, when an inspection was carried out and the petitioner being named as the manager, is an abuse of process of law and proceedings are hanging fire against the petitioner, though he is permitted to return to his country. The present petition is filed claiming that the proceedings be quashed as he has no truck with the Company and he was merely visiting as a consultant and has no further business with the respondent Company. The claim of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondent, who has failed to appear through counsel. Though the counsel for the respondent has been named, none has appeared and objected to the petition.
8. Accepting the contention of the petitioner that he is a Foreign National and has nothing to do with accused No.1 or accused No.2, the present petition is summarily allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC No.8343/13 on the file of the 7 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*