THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.6487/2007 and 7116/2007 Dt.12-8-2010 Crl.P.No.6487/2007: 1. Sm. Ippili Chaitanya and others. ..Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 V. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.6487/2007 and 7116/2007 COMMON ORDER Crl.P.No.6487/2007 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in CC No.186/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa, Srikakulam District. Crl.P.No.7116/2007 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in CC No.211/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa, Srikakulam District. In both the cases, the complaints filed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, represented by the Environmental Engineer under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short “the Air Act”) were taken on file by the learned Magistrate. Since the subject matter in both the petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The complainant allegations would show that in spite of issuing a closure order dt. 8-2-2007 under Section 31(A) of the Air Act by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Zonal Office, Visakahaptnam, for not changing over to boiling process, by affixing the same at the petitioners’ Unit, namely, M/s. Malla Chaitanya Cashew Factory, the petitioners/accused in CC No.186/2007 was operating the unit in drum roasting process without having consent for operations, violating the closure orders issued under Section 31-A of the Act, as per the inspection made by the authorities of the Board on 19-5-2007. Similar closure order dt. 8-2-2007 was passed by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam against the petitioners/accused in CC No.211/2007 and in spite of the same, they are operating the unit in drum roasting process without the consent for operations from the Pollution Control Board. The petitioners/accused in both the petitions preferred appeals against the closure order dt. 8-2-2007, being appeal Nos.179/2007 and 56/2007 respectively. The appellate authority after elaborate enquiry dismissed appeal No.56/2007 vide common order dt. 28-4-2007. But in the appeal preferred by the petitioners/accused in CC No.186/2007, the appellate authority did not grant stay against the closure order. In spite of the same, they are operating their units in drum roasting process, thereby causing severe air pollution to the surrounding area and causing ill health to the residents, and public. Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in Crl.P.No.6487/2007 contends that under Sec. 43 of Air Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer authorized in this behalf by it, and the complaint is silent about the authorization given to the Environmental Engineer and therefore, the Magistrate should not take cognizance of the case. He further contends that the first petitioner, who is the daughter of the third petitioner is residing out of the Country and she has been unnecessarily implicated as she is nothing to do with the Unit and therefore, proceedings initiated against her cannot be continued. Sri A. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in Crl.P.No.7116/2007 contends that since the first petitioner/A-1 left to United Kingdom in the month of August, 2007, the question of his operating the unit in the month of September, 2007 does not arise, and therefore, proceedings initiated against him cannot be continued. No ground has been taken by the petitioners/accused in Crl.P.No.6487/2007 that the first petitioner/A-1 is no way connected with the Unit and proceedings initiated against her cannot be continued. This ground has been taken first time across the bar, which cannot be taken into consideration. The first petitioner in Crl.P.No.7116/2007 is shown as Proprietor of M/s. Sri Kalyana Chakravarthi Cashew Industries. Merely, because he is residing in United Kingdom, it cannot be said that he is not responsible for conduct of the business being a proprietor of the Unit. A.P. Pollution Control Board by its resolution No.1302 authorized the Environmental Engineer, Regional Office to initiate prosecution without prior reference to the Head Office and the same has been communicated to the Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Vizianagaram through Memo No.83/WP19748/APPCB/Legal/EE/2006-346 dt. 30-5-2007, whereunder Environmental Engineer was directed to launch prosecution against defaulting units, where prosecution notices were already issued. In view of the same, this court do not find any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions to quash the proceedings pending, against the petitioners, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Cass, Palasa, Srikakulam District in CC No.186/2007 and 211/2007 respectively. Both the criminal petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.12-8-2010 kmr