Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj.State Pollu.Control Board vs M/S K.H. Fabrics on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52987]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 647/1997
Rajasthan State Pollution control Board, 4, Institutional Area,
Jhalan Dungri, Jaipur, through Secretary
----Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. K.H. Fabrics, Sumerpur Road, Pali
2. Shri Suleman, Manager, M/s. K.H. Fabrics, Sumerpur Road,
Pali
3. Shri Yakub, Partner
4. Shri Noor Mohammed, Partner
Both Partner, M/s. K.H. Fabrics, Sumerpur Road, Pali
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Piyush Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment Judgment reserved on : 03/12/2025 Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.32/1994 whereby the learned appellate court reversed the judgment dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in Criminal Original Case No.64/1992, whereby the learned trial court had convicted and sentenced the respondents for the offences under Sections 24 (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (2 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] read with Section 43 and Section 25 read with Section 44 of the Water Pollution Act. The learned appellate court acquitted the respondents from the above offences.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present and ready to argue the matter. However, none appears on behalf of the respondents. In these circumstances, Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the respondents under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case, are that a complaint was filed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board against the respondents, namely K.H. Fabrics and associated individuals, under Sections 24, 25, 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The complaint alleged that the industry located on Sumerpur Road, engaged in dyeing and printing operations, was discharging approximately 45,000 liters of untreated industrial effluent into municipal drains, which ultimately flowed into the Mandi River. The industry had obtained consent to operate until 31.12.1978. Despite the expiry of this consent, it was alleged that the respondents continued to discharge effluent in violation of the prescribed standards and without implementing any pollution control measures.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (3 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997]
4. On 22.03.1979, an inspection of the premises was conducted by Mr. Madan Mohan Goyal, Assistant Engineer of the Board, who collected samples of the effluent. The samples were sent for laboratory analysis. Based on these findings and after obtaining the requisite approval from the Board, a formal complaint was lodged against the respondents.
5. The trial court recorded statements of witnesses and examined the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. The accused-respondents denied their involvement, contending that the factory was located outside the municipal drain network and challenging the validity of the inspection and sampling procedures.
6. Despite the defenses raised, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali, by judgment dated 15.12.1992, convicted the respondents under Sections 24, 25 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Act. The respondents were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines. M/s. K.H. Fabrics was also penalized under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act.
7. Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pali. The learned appellate court by judgment dated 29.04.1995, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents. The appellate court (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (4 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] noted substantial procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the prosecution case, including that the inspection report (Exhibit P-
10) was not prepared at the site; Laboratory analysis was conducted by a person who was not duly authorized at the relevant time; Proper sample sealing and documentation procedures were not followed; The complaint had not been filed by a duly authorized person and held that these lapses rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the respondents.
8. Being dissatisfied with the appellate court's order, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board has filed the present criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC, challenging the judgment dated 29.04.1995 and seeking restoration of the trial court conviction.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.32/1994 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and is therefore liable to be quashed.
10. It was submitted that the learned appellate court failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is sufficient to (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (5 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] constitute an offence under these provisions if poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter is allowed to enter any stream, well, sewer, or on land without the consent of the State Board.
11. Learned counsel further contended that the learned appellate court committed a patent illegality in not relying upon the inspection report (Exhibit P-10) of PW-2 Shri M. M. Goyal, solely on the ground that it was prepared on 30.03.1979 instead of the date of inspection, 22.03.1979. It was submitted that the learned Judge grossly erred in holding that the complaint was not filed by an authorised person and that proper sanction had not been obtained. It was argued that PW-1 Shri K. L. Goyal, a public servant under Section 50 of the Water Act and Chief Executive Officer, as well as a member of the Board, had filed the complaint after a decision was taken by the Board in this regard. There was no reason for the learned appellate court to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1.
12. Learned counsel emphasized that the learned appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence regarding sampling adduced by the prosecution. The Sessions Judge doubted whether the sample collected by PW-2 reached the Board's laboratory in an untampered condition. It was submitted that before taking the sample, PW-2 had served notice on the accused, Shri Suleman, and the sample was collected in his presence, sealed, marked, and signed both by the accused and PW-2. The sample was then sent (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (6 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] to the Board Analyst in a sealed condition, and the analysis report (Exhibit P-11) confirms that the seal was intact. Learned counsel submitted that analysis reports are admissible per se under Section 84 of the Water Act and that official acts are presumed to be regularly performed under Section 114(c) of the Evidence Act. It was further submitted that it was not mandatory for the Board to produce intermediary evidence, such as carriers, to prove the integrity of the sample. Any alleged irregularity could have been raised by the respondents themselves, but no such objections were made at the time.
13. It was contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that PW-2 Shri M. M. Goyal was not authorized by the Board to conduct the inspection. Exhibit P-8, the notice of inspection, clearly stated that it was issued by the Member Secretary by order of the Board, which was sufficient proof of authorization under the Rajasthan Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules.
14. Learned counsel further argued that the learned appellate court erred in rejecting the analysis report dated 21.04.1979 of the Board Analyst Shri S. C. Saxena, on the ground that he was not authorized on that date and that the subsequent notification dated 26.04.1979 was retrospective and therefore invalid. It was submitted that Shri S. C. Saxena was appointed Board Analyst on 26.07.1978, and the later notification only gave formal recognition (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (7 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] of his existing powers. The Board has the power under Section 12(3) of the Water Act to appoint officers for efficient functioning, and such appointments are valid even if the notification is issued later. The notification is directory in nature under Section 53(3) read with Section 12(3) and does not affect the substantive rights of the accused. The analysis report issued by Shri Saxena was perfectly valid and admissible in evidence, and acquittal cannot be based on the date of issuance of the notification. Learned counsel emphasized that the conjoint reading of Sections 53(3) and 54 of the Water Act clearly shows that any subsequent notification simply recognizes powers already in existence and allows the analyst's report to be used without examining him in the witness box. In light of the above, it was submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law by ignoring the statutory evidence and procedural compliance of the Board, thereby wrongly reversing the trial court judgment and acquitting the respondents. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents (Amicus Curiae) submitted that there are several serious infirmities in the prosecution case which render the findings of the trial court unsafe, justifying the acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (8 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997]
16. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the inspection report (Exhibit P-10) prepared by PW-2, Shri M. M. Goyal, is highly doubtful and unreliable. PW-2 himself admitted during cross-examination that the notes made during the inspection on 22.03.1979 were destroyed after preparation of the report, and therefore, could not be placed on record. Further, it was pointed out that while the inspection was conducted on 22.03.1979, Exhibit P-10 bears the date 30.03.1979, indicating that the report was not prepared contemporaneously and raising serious doubts about its authenticity and reliability. It was also submitted that the names and signatures of the persons present at the site during inspection were not recorded in the report, which casts further doubt on the veracity of Exhibit P-10. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in disbelieving the inspection report.
17. Learned counsel contended that the sample collected from the final outlet of the accused firm was sent to the Board Analyst without proper documentation. The slip accompanying the sample was not produced on record, and there is no evidence to establish that the sample reached the laboratory in a sealed and untampered condition. This raises reasonable doubts about the integrity of the sample.
18. It was further submitted that Shri S. C. Saxena, the Board Analyst, was appointed only on 26.04.1979, whereas the analysis (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (9 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] in question was conducted on 21.04.1979. Therefore, the report prepared on 21.04.1979 cannot be considered valid or admissible against the respondents.
19. Learned counsel emphasized that PW-2, Shri M. M. Goyal, was not authorised to collect the sample. Exhibit P-12, which lists authorised personnel to take samples, does not include PW-2, thereby casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of the inspection and sampling process.
20. Learned counsel argued that all procedural requirements under the Water Pollution Act were not complied with, including proper authorisation, preparation of inspection notes, contemporaneous reporting, and division and sealing of samples. These procedural lapses render the prosecution evidence doubtful. He submitted that given the doubts regarding the inspection report, authorisation, and sample integrity, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the acquittal of the respondents should be upheld. With these submissions, it was contended that the appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (10 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997]
21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the trial court proceedings, the evidence on record, the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents (through Amicus Curiae).
22. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted that the inspection report (Exhibit P-10) prepared by PW-2, Shri M. M. Goyal, was created on 30.03.1979, while the actual inspection of the respondents' industry took place on 22.03.1979. PW-2 himself admitted in cross-examination that his original notes prepared during the inspection were destroyed and not produced in the trial. Further, the report does not bear the signatures of persons present during the inspection, who could have corroborated the observations recorded. These lapses create serious doubt regarding the reliability and authenticity of the inspection report. A report prepared after the event, without original notes or signatures of onsite witnesses, cannot form a sole basis for sustaining conviction, and the Additional Sessions Judge rightly placed little reliance on Exhibit P-10.
23. So far as the sampling procedure is concerned, it is noted that effluent samples were collected from the final outlet of the respondents' industry. PW-2 deposed that the sample was collected in the presence of the accused, sealed, marked, and then sent to the Board analyst. However, there is no independent (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (11 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] evidence to establish that the sample remained untampered during transit to the laboratory. Under the Water Pollution Act, proper custody and chain of evidence for samples is crucial. Any lapses in ensuring the integrity of samples, as evident in the present case, introduce reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the laboratory analysis.
24. Regarding authorization of the Inspecting Officer, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that PW-2, Shri M. M. Goyal, was authorized to conduct the inspection and sampling. However, the respondents pointed out that PW-2 was not listed in Exhibit P- 12, the official document listing authorized officers for inspection. This casts doubt on the validity of the inspection. This court finds that the prosecution has not conclusively established that PW-2 was validly authorized at the time of inspection. Authorization under the Water Pollution Act is a statutory requirement, and non- compliance with this condition renders the inspection and subsequent sample collection legally questionable.
25. Coming to the argument regarding authority of the Board Analyst, the analysis of samples was conducted by Shri S. C. Saxena on 21.04.1979. The notification formally appointing him as Board Analyst was issued on 26.04.1979. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the analysis conducted prior to formal appointment was of doubtful validity. The appointment of a Board Analyst is governed by Section 12(3) of the Water Pollution Act, (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (12 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] and a subsequent notification merely formalized the procedural aspect. However, in the absence of clear evidence that the Analyst was authorized on the date of analysis, this court agrees with the learned appellate court that the probative value of the analysis report is questionable.
26. Regarding the Filing of the Complaint and Sanction, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that PW-1, Shri K. L. Goyal, was authorized as a public servant to file the complaint. The respondents argued that the complaint was not filed by an authorized officer and no proper sanction was obtained. This court is of the view that the filing of the complaint by an authorized officer is a statutory requirement and the record does not conclusively prove that such authorization was in place. The Additional Sessions Judge correctly noted that this irregularity contributed to the overall doubt regarding the validity of the prosecution case.
27. Upon an over all assessment of the evidence, based upon the material available on record, this court finds that the inspection report is not contemporaneous and lacks corroborative signatures; the sample collection and analysis process suffered from procedural irregularities and lack of conclusive evidence regarding chain of custody and authorization; the Board Analyst's authority at the time of analysis was questionable; filing of the complaint and sanction by authorized officers was not sufficiently proved.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (13 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] These deficiencies, individually and collectively, create reasonable doubt as to whether the respondents committed the alleged offences under Sections 24 read with 43 and Sections 25 read with 44 of the Water Pollution Act.
28. The Sections 24 and 25 of the Water Act clearly make it an offence to allow poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter a stream or well or land without the consent of the Board. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents discharged polluted effluents in violation of these provisions. The procedural lapses in inspection, sampling, and analysis preclude any safe inference of guilt.
29. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and legal position and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This court finds no error, illegality, or jurisdictional defect in the judgment dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, reversing the conviction and acquitting the respondents.
30. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board under Section 378(1) of the CrPC is dismissed. The judgment dated 29.04.1995 of the learned (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52987] (14 of 14) [CRLA-647/1997] Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.32/1994 is affirmed. The acquittal of the respondents is maintained.
31. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith.
32. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid her fee by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per rules.
(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:41:36 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)