THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2790 of 2008 Date: 5.8.2010 Between: Mallu Sadasiva Rao. ………...Petitioner/A1. And The State Rep by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and complainant. …… Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2790 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by Mallu Sadasiva Rao who has been arrayed as A1 in C.C.No.252 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, Srikakulam District with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Sardar Cashew Industries (presently M/s.Saptagiri Cashew Industries) Sasanam Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. It is a proprietary concern. The A.P.Pollution Control Board issued directions vide order No.902/PCB/TF-VJA/1998-612, dated 04/04/2006 for shifting all cashew manufacturing units located in Palasa, Kasibugga and Mogilipadu areas. The petitioner continued to operate the unit in drum roasting process in gross violation of the directions issued under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Amendment) Act. On 8.2.2007, the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), Zonal Office, Vizag got issued closure order under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Amendment) Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the closure order dated 8.2.2007 issued by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Vizag before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Air Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner ended in dismissal on 28.4.2007. The board conducted Ambient Air quality monitoring in Palasa, Kasibugga and Mogilipadu areas. During the monitoring, it was noticed that the petitioner continued to operate the unit without installing either air pollution control equipment or shifted to boll process, and, thereby, causing severe air pollution to the surrounding areas and causing ill health to the residents and public. Therefore, a complaint came to be presented by the A.P.Pollution Control Board, Regional Office represented by its Environmental Engineer before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa. For better understanding, I may refer to the relevant portion of the complaint, which reads as hereunder:- “The Complainant further submits that he Board officials had conducted many surprise inspections of cashew units located in Palasa- Kasibugga-Mogilipadu areas as part of ensuing compliance to the Hon’ble High Court orders dated 26/02/2007 issued in W.P.No.19748/2006. Copy of the order is herewith filled as Annexure-VI. The complainant also got issued paper notification in Eenadu daily news paper on 20/05/2007 (Annexure-VII) notifying all the concerned cashew units that no cashew unit was issued consent for operation for drum roasting process and operating the unit without valid consent for Operation (CFO) of the Board is violation of provisions of the Air Act. On 19/09/2007, the complainant inspected and observed that the accused industry was operating the unit with drum roasting process. Photographs of the accused industry depicting the operation of the accused industry were taken on 19/09/2007. Photographs taken on 19/09/2007 are enclosed as Annexure-VIII. So it is clearly evident from the above facts that the accused violated the provisions of the Air Act and its amendments by continuously operating the industry illegally without Consent for Operation order of the Board required under Section 21/22 of the Air Act. So it clearly shows that he was operating the industry. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished under section 37 of the Air Act on account of failure to comply with the provisions of sections of 21/22 and the closure order issued under Section 31 (A) of the Air Amendment Act. The cause of action for this case arise on 08/02/2007 when the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Zonal Office, Vizag issued closure order against the accused and subsequently, he operated the industry with the drum roasting process and the industry situated at Sasanam Village with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Under the above said circumstances, the complainant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to punish the accused to the provisions of the Air Act in the interest of justice.” The learned Magistrate took the cognizance for offence under Section 37 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and registered the case as C.C.No.255 of 2007. Hence this petition by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer stated supra. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-APPCB. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way concerned with M/s.Sardar Cashew Industries, and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for any of the violations made by Spatagiri Cashew Industries under the provisions of Section 37 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. A further submission has been made that the complaint has been filed by the Environmental Engineer whereas the closure order has been issued by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Zonal Office, A.P Pollution Control Board, Vizag and in which case, the complaint has been filed by the incompetent person, and, therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.255 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. With regard to the first contention, it can be rejected by referring the document No.4 enclosed to the complaint and it is the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.4.2007. The petitioner having preferred an appeal assailing the order passed against the Saptagiri Cashew Industries cannot be permitted to contend that he is no way concerned with the Sardar Cashew Industries. Hence the first contention advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained. With regard to the second contention, as the complaint itself is filed by the Board, the Board has to be necessarily represented by one of his officials. The Environmental Engineer has stated in the first para of the complaint that he is authorized to file criminal case against the accused. Such is the authorization, it cannot be said that the Environmental Engineer is incompetent to file the complaint on behalf of the Board. Hence the second contention advanced by the petitioner has no merit. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:05.8.2010 mrb