Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.

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) [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.