Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh Environment ... vs M/S Amlidih Quartz Mine on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14286
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2577 of 2019
Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer
Regional Office, 5/32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - M/s Amlidih Quartz Mine Mining Lease Area- 5.852 Hectare Quartz Mine
Unit, Part Of Khasra No. 958, P.H.N. 93/32, Village Amlidih, P.O. Amlidih,
Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
2 - Deepchandra Nahar, Proprietor S/o Chunnilal Nahar, M/s Amlidih Quartz
RAJSHEKHAR signed by
SONI RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Mine (5.852 Hectare) R/o J.K. Villa, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh Pin 491001, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') with following prayer:
"i) quash/set aside the order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and/or thereby allowing the revision.
ii) or any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious."2
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a statutory body which has a responsibility to ensure the necessary compliance of the mandates provided under the various Environment Protection Laws. The respondents are engaged in mining of Quartz at village Amlidih at Tahsil Dongargarh and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Upon inspection of the concerned premise, it reveled to the authorities that, the respondent concerned is running without the necessary authorization and permission required under section 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and section 37 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. It was also found that, the lease granted to it by the Collector had ended way back on 28.01.2007. Upon this and other discrepancies, the petitioner authority preferred a complaint against the respondents for necessary action and punishment prescribed under the Environment Protection Act for violation of its section 15 and 16. The unregistered complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.02.2018. Against the said order, an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C was preferred before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2018. There against a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2019, by the Learned Sessions Judge, holding the same to be barred by limitation. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the revisional court is baseless, irrational and unwarranted and deserves to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted that the learned revisional court has erred in not appreciating the fact that prima facie case is made out against the respondent and there was 3 ample grounds satisfying the requirements of Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court ought to have appreciated that it was under a bonafide legal misreading that the appeal was preferred. The petitioner most diligently was back pursuing the Complaint by bringing in a revision. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the complaint involved a serious issue of environment which affected public at large and hence consideration while dismissing the revision had to be made. Hence, the impugned orders is liable to be set aside
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. It transpires from the records that the proceedings have arisen out of a complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under Section 15 and 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with Sections 37 and 40 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Sections 44 and 47 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, against the respondents/accused persons. As per the complaint, Accused No. 1 is a proprietary mining concern engaged in the business of extraction of quartz from Village Amlidih, Khasra No. 958, Patwari Halka No. 93/32, admeasuring 5.852 hectares, situated in Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. Accused No. 2 is the proprietor of the said mine and is the owner and person in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the said concern, both directly and indirectly. It is alleged that the accused persons commenced production activities without obtaining the requisite environmental clearance from the Board. Upon inspection of the unit 4 on 11.01.2013, it was found that the accused had started production without obtaining consent to establish from the complainant Board as mandated under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the trial Court, and prior to registration, preliminary evidence of Ajay Chandanaloo, Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, was recorded. The matter was listed for preliminary evidence on 12.12.2017 and thereafter on 27.02.2018. On the said date, in absence of the complainant and his counsel, the trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 was preferred by the petitioner before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), and the same also stood dismissed on 11.09.2018, by upholding the mandate of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the statutory procedure had not been followed. It was observed that, in the first instance, the petitioner ought to have approached this Court by filing an application seeking special leave to appeal, and only upon grant of such leave by the High Court, could the appeal have been presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11.09.2018, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, being Criminal Revision No. 29/2019, before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). However, by order dated 23.08.2019, the said 5 revision also came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the same was found to be barred by a delay of 01 year and 02 months, the revision having been filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days prescribed from the date of dismissal of the said criminal appeal, and against the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and from the perusal of the documents annexed with the instant petition, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out in the present case on merits, and it is clear that the unregistered complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents was dismissed for want of prosecution, thereafter, against the order dismissing the complaint, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 which also stood dismissed as per the proviso contained under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, and thirdly, against the order dismissing the said appeal, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 29/2019 which was filed after an inordinate delay of 01 year and 02 months. Resultantly, the revision was also dismissed on the ground of delay and barred by limitation, and there is no any infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant CRMP being devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar