Karnataka High Court
The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 3 March, 2015
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100189/2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD.,
BANGUR NAGAR,
DANDELI-581 325,
TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA,
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MR. K.L.CHANDAK)
2. K L CHANDRAK,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE WEST COST PAPER MILLS LTD
BANGUR NAGAR,
DANDELIO-581 325.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.: PRASHANTH T AREGULI, ADV.)
AND
KARNATAKA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
C-14, B 5TH CROSS, NEW K.H.B.
2
COLONY, HABBAWADA,
KARWAR-581 306 (U.K.).
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.M.HIRAMATH, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.98/2005 ON THE FILE OF
THE JMFC COURT, DANDELI (ANNEXURE-A), FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 15 & 19 OF ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, heard on its merits and taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company represented through its Executive Director is seeking to quash the order passed by the JMFC Court, Dandeli, dated 2/1/2015, whereby the request of the petitioner-accused to accept the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and discharge the accused was rejected. 3
3. The facts succinctly stated the accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 15 and 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The accused was summoned, the accusation was read over to the accused: he pleaded not guilty. However, at the stage of the trial, the accused requested the Court to permit him to pay the fine amount and close the proceedings.
4. The learned Magistrate after giving audience to both sides has rejected the prayer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, i.e. in respect of criminal case launched at the instance of the very same respondent-Board, this Court was pleased to pass direction to the concerned Magistrate to accept the fine amount (which is payable in the event of the prosecution proves its case under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act) and to close proceedings. Though there is omission on the part of the petitioners in not pleading guilty at the appropriate 4 stage, even before the conclusion of the trial, they are agreeable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- which amount is the maximum fine amount fixed under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the petition may be disposed of in accordance with the earlier order passed on similar petition and the case may be closed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Court below.
7. It is the submission at the bar that application seeking permission filed by the Company was pending consideration before the Control Board and under the bonafide belief that permission would be granted, the Company has commenced operation. After three days of commencement of Company, permission was granted by the Board. Commencement of Company without prior permission, was not due to any malafide intention. Under the circumstances, I hold that ends of justice 5 require that criminal prosecution shall be closed against the petitioner if the maximum fine amount scheduled under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act is deposited before the court below by the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the court below within four weeks from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order. In that event, proceedings against the petitioner shall stand closed in accordance with the provisions of Section 258 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb/hnm