Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Board For Prevention Cont vs M/S Bansidhar Rameshwardas And Com on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52813]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 259/1997
Secretary, Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of
Pollution, 4 Institutional Area, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Bansidhar Rameshwardas & Company, Ramdev Road, Pali
2. Champa Lal
3. Shyamlal
4. Rameshwardas (expired, appeal abated)
Partners M/s Bansidhar Rameshwardas & Company, Ramdev
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 reservd on : 03/12/2025 Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025
1. The appellant Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order dated 25.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in Criminal Complaint No. 5/1992, whereby the respondents-accused M/s Banshidhar Rameshwar Das & Company, its partners Champa Lal and Shyam Lal were acquitted of the offences alleged under Sections 24, 25 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter "the (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (2 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] Act"). The trial court recorded acquittal by granting benefit of doubt.
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. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the trial court, was that the accused firm, engaged in dyeing and printing activities at Ramdev Road, Pali, was discharging approximately 10,000 litres of untreated trade effluent per day into municipal drains ultimately joining the Bandi river. It was alleged that on 24.03.1979, PW-2 Madan Mohan Goel, Assistant Engineer of the Board, conducted an inspection after serving notice under the Rules and collected samples from the final outlet. The samples, sealed at site in the presence of the occupier, were forwarded to the Board laboratory at Jaipur and were analysed vide report Ex. P-8, which according to the Board revealed violations of the prescribed standards under IS-2490. Earlier, the accused firm had obtained consent under Sections 25/26 of the Act which, as per the Board, stood valid only till 31.12.1978. It was alleged that the accused continued to (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (3 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] discharge effluent without renewal of consent, thereby attracting penal liability.
4. During trial, one of the partners, Rameshwar Das, expired on 13.10.1993 and proceedings against him abated. The learned Magistrate relied mainly on the testimony of PW-2 but found significant lacunae in sampling procedures, non-production of key witnesses, absence of proof regarding compliance of sampling rules, and non-establishment of chain of custody. Accordingly, acquittal was recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse. It was urged that the learned Magistrate erred in discarding the testimony of PW-1 K.L. Goel, Member-Secretary of the Board, merely because cross- examination could not be completed owing to his death. Reliance was placed on Section 33 of the Evidence Act, permitting use of such testimony recorded in judicial proceedings. Learend counsel further submitted that the Magistrate wrongly drew adverse inference for non-examination of Ashok Gupta (J.En.) and Laxmikant (Manager), although PW-2 had categorically stated that he alone performed the acts of serving notice, collecting samples, sealing containers, preparing inspection notes and dispatching samples. It was argued that producing more witnesses to prove the same fact was unnecessary and that the quality of evidence, not quantity, is material.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (4 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997]
6. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court erroneously held that provisions of Section 100 CrPC regarding search and seizure applied to inspections under Section 23 of the Act. It was argued that the inspections are not searches and do not require independent witnesses. Notices of inspection and sampling, namely Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-11, were duly served.
7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding regarding absence of properly notified standards is unsustainable. The Board had duly adopted IS-2490 Part I standards, communicated to the accused under Ex. P-3, and if aggrieved, the accused had the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 28 which was never exercised.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the conclusion of the learned Magistrate regarding break in the chain of custody is contrary to record. PW-2 clearly stated that he deposited the sample in the Board laboratory, and Ex. P-8 records that the seal was intact. By virtue of Section 54 of the Act, the analysis report is per se admissible.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate important incriminating documents such as consent application, consent conditions, inspection report Ex. P-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (5 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] 7, analysis report Ex. P-8, minutes of meeting Ex. P-9, and the information furnished by the accused Ex. P-13.
10. Learned counsel contended that the learned Magistrate misinterpreted Sections 25 and 26, failing to recognise that even discharge through an existing outlet after the commencement of the Act required consent, irrespective of whether the outlet was pre-existing. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the appeal, reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondents.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment contending that the prosecution was riddled with incurable defects. It was argued that the prosecution failed to examine material witnesses, particularly Ashok Gupta, who admittedly accompanied PW-2 during inspection and whose signature was absent on the inspection report. This omission weakened the credibility of the prosecution story.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that PW-2 admitted destruction of contemporaneous inspection notes, non-compliance with sampling protocol, and inability to specify who transported the sample to Jaipur. There was no evidence that the sample reached the laboratory in an untampered state. The sampling was not done in accordance with mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, particularly the requirement of dividing the (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (6 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] sample into two portions and handing over one to the occupier. The accused specifically disputed this, and the endorsement on Ex. P-11 did not satisfactorily prove compliance.
13. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of validly notified standards or demonstrate that the alleged effluent exceeded any legally enforceable limit. The prosecution also failed to establish that the discharge reached any "stream" as defined, or prove actual pollution of Bandi river.
14. It was further submitted that the material documents such as minutes of the Board meeting, alleged consent conditions, and certain notices were either inadmissible as secondary evidence or were never proved according to law. With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
15. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record.
16. It is necessary to recall that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court should not lightly interfere. Unless the findings of the trial court are shown to be manifestly unreasonable or perverse, the view taken in favour of the accused must ordinarily (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (7 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] be allowed to stand. If on the basis of the material on record two possible views emerge, the one favouring the accused must prevail.
17. Examining the material with this principle in mind, it becomes clear that the trial court found several serious shortcomings in the prosecution case, and these shortcomings are borne out by the record. The prosecution rested almost entirely on the testimony of PW-2 Madan Mohan Goel, the Assistant Engineer who conducted the inspection on 24.03.1979. However, PW-2 himself stated that he was accompanied by Ashok Gupta, Junior Engineer, and by the factory manager, Laxmikant, both of whom would have been material witnesses to the proceedings. Neither of these persons was examined during trial. Their absence deprives the prosecution of important corroboration, particularly because PW-2 admitted that the contemporaneous notes made at the site were later destroyed and that the formal inspection report produced in the case was prepared subsequently. These circumstances legitimately raise doubt regarding the accuracy and completeness of the inspection process.
18. A further deficiency appears in the matter of sample collection. The Water Act requires that any sample taken for analysis be divided into two portions, one of which must be handed over to the occupier of the premises. PW-2 conceded in his cross-examination that the sample in the present case was not (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (8 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] divided, and the accused have consistently asserted that no part of the sample was ever given to them. The endorsement on the notice relied upon by the prosecution does not convincingly establish that the statutory procedure was followed. Since the prosecution case depends fundamentally on the result of the chemical examination, non-compliance with mandatory sampling safeguards goes to the root of the matter.
19. Another significant aspect of the matter is the failure of the prosectuion to establish the chain of custody of the sample. PW-2 was unable to state with clarity as to who actually transported the sample to the Jaipur laboratory or when it was deposited there, and no documentary receipt of its submission was produced. In such circumstances, it becomes unsafe to rely solely on the chemical analysis report, as the prosecution has not proved that the sample remained sealed and untampered from the moment of collection until analysis.
20. The prosecution also failed to prove that the standards alleged to have been violated were legally enforceable. Though reliance was placed on IS-2490 norms, no notification or document was produced to show that such standards had been formally adopted or notified under the Water Act at the relevant time. Penal liability cannot be imposed without proving that the discharge contravened duly notified and binding standards. Moreover, the prosecution did not establish that the alleged (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (9 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] effluent actually reached the Bandi river or any "stream" within the meaning of the Act. No evidence, either through inspection notes, maps, or witness testimony, was produced to show that the discharge from the unit ultimately entered a natural water body. This is an essential ingredient of the offences charged and cannot be presumed.
21. Certain documents relied upon by the prosecution, including minutes of Board meetings and consent conditions, were also not properly proved through competent witnesses and therefore, could not be treated as substantive evidence. These omissions further weaken the prosecution case.
22. In view of these cumulative deficiencies, viz. absence of corroboration, defective sampling, broken chain of custody, failure to prove legally notified standards, non-establishment of discharge into a stream, and non-proof of key documents, the view taken by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. The prosecution left several important gaps in establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the accused.
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52813] (10 of 10) [CRLA-259/1997] the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali. The appeal is devoid of merit.
24. Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 378(1) CrPC by the Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.11.1993 acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections 24, 25 and 26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is hereby affirmed.
25. The record be returned to the trial court.
26. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid her fee by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per rules.
(FARJAND ALI),J 12-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:03:37 PM) (Downloaded on 10/12/2025 at 08:48:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)