Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the complaint, holding that the complaint disclosed sufficient material against the Joint Managing Director and that the quashing was improper.

Summary

The U.P. Pollution Control Board granted conditional consent to Modi Carpets Ltd. to discharge trade effluent, but the company discharged untreated effluent in violation of the consent. The Board filed a complaint under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 against the company and its officers, including the Joint Managing Director (respondent No.1). The High Court, on a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the complaint as to the Joint Managing Director, holding there was no material showing he was in charge of the company. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the complaint disclosed sufficient material against the Joint Managing Director and whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The Court held that the complaint specifically alleged the officer’s responsibility and that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint. It set aside the High Court order, directed the Special Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the trial, and allowed the criminal appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the complaint under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 disclosed material against the Joint Managing Director of Modi Carpets Ltd.
Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 25, s. 26, s. 44, s. 47

Subjects

environmental lawwater pollutionSection 44Section 47corporate liabilityinherent jurisdictionSection 482quashing of complaintpublic healthcorporate officers liability

Judgment

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 349

.. ..
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
II.
DR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI & ANR.
A

(Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2008)
DECEMBER 12, 2008
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

~~~ CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
s.482 - Petition for quashing of·complaint- Assertions
against company and its officers of discharging of untreated c
- trade effluent in river - Complaint quashed by High Court as
regards the Joint Managing Director of the company holding
that there was no material to show that at the relevant time
he was in-charge and responsible to the company for conduct
of its business - HELD: High Court has quashed the 0
complaint arising in an environmental matter in a casual
manner - There are specific averments in the complaint with
)
reference to all officers named therein including the Joint
Managing Director of the Company- Order of High Court set
aside - Circumstances under which power u/s 482 can be
exercised - Discussed - Water (Prevention and Control of
I!
Pollution) Act, 1974 - ss. 25,26,44 and 47.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW:
Complaint against company and its officers responsible
for discharge of untreated trade effluent in river - Quashed F
by High Court as regards the Joint Managing Director of the
Company- HELD: In the matter of this nature affecting public
health, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with the cases
involving pollution of air and water - Courts share the
parliamentary concern and legislative intent of environmental
G
laws to check the escalating pollution level and restore the
balance of our environment - Those who discharge noxious
... polluting effluents into streams, rivers or any other water
bodies which inflicts the public health at large should be dealt

349 H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A with strictly de hors the technical objection$ - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- ss. 25,26,44
and 47 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482.
On an application by· a company of which
respondent no. 1 was the Joint Managing Director, a
B conditional consent was granted by the appellant-UP
Pollution Control Board on 22.1.1983 to the company to
discharge its trade effluent in river Sai .. However, on
inspection by the officers of the Board, it was found that
the Unit of the Company did not cons~ruct any effluent
c treatment plant but was discharging the,trade effluent in
river Sai without treatment and in violation of the consent
order. Letters were sent to the Company to the effect that
·non-compliance of the· conditions of the consent order
·-
would be an offence u/s 44 of th~ Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 19~4, but the company
D continued to defy the provisions of the Act. Ulti.mately,
complaint case No; 44 was filed against the company and
its Chairman, Vic:e-Chairman, Managing Director, Joint
Managing Director .(Respondent no. 1), Directo.rs and
some of its senior..officers, allegirig Violation of SS. 25 and
E 26 and for penal action u/s 44 of the Act. On a .petition
filed. uls 482 CrPC stating that at the relevant time
responden!.. no. 1 was not concerned with day-to-day
business of the comP.any and, th~refore, he could not be
prosecuted, the High Court quashed the complaint so far
F as it related to him.
In the instant appeal filed by the Bbard, the questions
for consideration before the Cour'.t were as to whether the
complaint disclosed any material ag'ainst respondent no.
1, Joint Managing Director, particularly, ·his control over
G the decision making process. of the Company and
whether the High Court was justified in quashing the
complaint in so far as respor;id'enf no. 1, in a petition
under Section 482. Cr.P .C. /
Allowing the appeal, the Court
H HELD: 1.1.. It is settled legal position that at the stage
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 351
... KUMAR MODI & ANR.

of issuing\process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned A
, .. with the a~legations made in the complaint or the evidence
led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie
satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused. [P~ra 14] (360-H; 361-A]
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi'f~nd B
Others (1976) 3 sec 736, relied on.
1.2. This Court has held exercise of power under
~·""' Section 482 of the Code as an exception; and under the
rule there are three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised i.e. (a) to give effect c
to an order of the Court; (b) to prevent abuse of the
,. process of'the Court; (c) to otherwise secure the ends
of justice. It is true that it is neither possible nor desirable
to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. While exercising inherent D
powers either on civil or criminal jurisdiction, the Court
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. The
inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution. It should be
exercised to do real and substantial justice and if any
E'
. attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to cause
injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. [Para 21]
1.3. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint,
the Court may examine the question of fact. When
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is pE!rmissible to
look into the materials to assess what the complainant F
_.. had alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto. While exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in· question is reliable or not or G
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. It is the function of the trial Judge
... to do so. The Court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of its power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A to stifle a _legitimate prosecution. [Para 21] [367-F-H;
368-A]
2. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that
respondent no. 1, before letting out trade effl~ent into a
stream or a river, has to satisfy certain conditions in terms
B of the provisions of the Act ,and the order of the
authorities concerned. It is also not in dispute that without
a consent order by the Board the Company cannot let out
untreated effluent into a land or stream or riV!er. Though
a consent order was issued by, the Board ·it has been
C specifically stated in the complaint that those conditions
have not been fulfilled by the Company. The Company
has been shown as first accused in the complaint apart ....
from including Chairman, Managing Director, Jt.
Managing Director, General' Manager, Directors,
Commercial Manager and Comp~ny Secretary as well as
D their ·specific- role in the day-to-,day affairs and decision
, rnaking process. There are specific avermentslassertions
in the complaint of the Board with .reference to all the
officers i.e. named persons in the complaint including
respondent no. 1 who is Joint r,hanaging Director of the
E Company. On perusal of the complaint and the relevant
materials In the form of docum~rits1 the Special Judicial
Magistrate (Pollution) entertai11ed the same and is.sued
summons to the named persc>ns in the complaint. '[Para
13 and .18) [.360-B-F; 363-H] :
F U.P. Pollution Control Board vs Messrs Modi Distillery
and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 684 ~nd U.P. Pollution Control
Board vs. Mohan Meakins Ltd. an(i Others (2000) 3 SCC 745,
relied on. -
· State of Kamataka vs. Pratap Chand and Others, (19S1)
G · 2 SCC 335; Municipal CorporationI
of Delhi
.
ils. Ram Kish~n
Rohtagi and Others, (1983) 1 spc 1; State of Haryan,a vs.
Brij Lal Mittal and Others, (1998), 5 SCC 343 and Na/in
Thakor and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2003) 12
sec 461, held inapplicable.
H

··-
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 353
KUMAR MODI & ANR.

3.1. The High Court has quashed the complaint A
arising in an environmental matter in a casual manner by
exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In a
matter of this nature, particularly, when it affects public
health if it is ultimately proved, courts cannot afford to
deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. B .
The message must go to all persons whether small or big
that the courts share the parliamentary concern and ·
legislative intent of the Act to check the escalating
pollution level and restore the balance of our
environment. Those who discharge noxious polluting
effluents into streams, rivers or any other water bodies C '
which inflicts on the public health at large, should be
dealt with strictly de hors the technical objections. Since
escalating pollution level of our environment affects the
life and health of human beings as well as animals, the
courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences D
under the pollution and environmental Acts in a causal
or routine manner. [Para 20 and 21) [366-G-H; 367-A-C]
3.2. In the light of the prin·ciples enunciated by this
Court and in view of the specific averments made in the ·
complaint coupled· with the statutory provisions, namely, - E
Sections 25, 26, 44 and 47 of the Act, the High Court erred
in quashing the complaint insofar as respondent no. 1.-
Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside. The
Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution) is directed to
proceed with the complaint and dispose of the same in F
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. If
respondent no. 1 applies for dispensing with his personal
presence in the Court, after making the first appearance,
the trial court can exempt him from continuing to appear
in the court, by imposing any condition which it deems G
fit. [Para 22) [368-C-E]
Case Law Reference:
~

(1976) 3 sec 736 relied on para 14
J (1981) 2 sec 335 . held inapplicable para 14
(1983) 1 SCC 1 held inapplicable para 15 H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 $.C.R.

A (1998) 5 sec 343 h~ld inapplicablepara 16
(2003) 12 sec 461 held inapplicable para 17
(1987) ?_sec 684 relied on para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2019 of 2008. - l.
B
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.11 :2004 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1347 of 2001.
Rakesh K. Khanna, Pradeep Misra and Suraj Singh for
C the Appellant.
L.N. Rao Shweta Bharti, Shreya Sharma Kaustobh Sinha
and B.B. Singh for the Respondents.
Th~ Judgment ~f the Court 'fas delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. (1) Leave granted.
I
D (2) This appeal is directed against the order dated
29.11.2004 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1347 of 2001 of
the High Court of Judicature at 1Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
quashing the Complaint Case No. 44of1988 filed.by the U.P.
Pollution Control Board, Lucknow through its officers against
E Mis Modi Carpets Ltd. Raebareli .and
I
12 others under Section
44 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(hereinafter referred· to as "the Act") pending in the Court of
Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution),
I
Lucknow. -
(3) Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
F The State Board for Prevention and Control of Water
Pollution was constituted on 03.02.1975 by the Government of
U.P. and it has been named as~ U.P. Pollution Control Board
(hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which is the appellan~
herein vide notification No. 2179~9-2-100-74 dated 13.07.1982.
G On the application submitted by M/s_ Modi Carpets Ltd.,
Raebareli, seeking consent to discharge effluent, the appellant-
Board granted conditional consent to discharge their trade
effluent in the river Sai. Since t~e conditions of consent were
not being complied with by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd., a letter dated
H
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 355
KUMAR MODI &ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

30.4.1983 was sent by the appellant-Board to M/s Modi'Carpets A
Ltd., Raebareli informing that non-compliance of the consent
conditions is an offence under Section 44 of the Act. On
07.06.1983, the inspection of unit of M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. was
done by the officers of the Board wherein it was found that
polluted trade effluent was being discharged into the river Sai B
through drain without any treatment and construction of effluent
treatment plant was yet to be started. On 19.01.1984, the Board
again sent a letter to M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. that conditions of
the consent order dated 22.1.1983 were not complied with.
Again it was reiterated that non-compliance of the conditions C
of consent would be an offence under Section 44 of the Act.
On 1'3.09.1984, the unit was again inspected by the officers of
the Board and it was found that effluent was being discharged
without any treatment. For this, Modi Carpets Ltd. sent a reply
dated 18.10.1984 to the appellant-Board giving clarifications
for not complying with the consent conditions and the same was D
considered ·and rejected by the Board on 31.10.1984 on the
ground that the unit was not complying with the prescribed
standards, consent conditions and also the application was
incomplete in various aspects.
(4) Since M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. was not complying with E
the provisions of the Act and there was violation of Sections
25 & 26 of the Act, a complaint under Section 44 was filed by
the Board through its Assistant Environmental Engineer against
responde.nt No.1 as well as other persons namely, Chairman, '
Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, F
Directors, General Manager, Commercial Manager and
Company Secretary of Mis Modi Carpets Ltd. before the
C.J.M., Raebareli. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint
that the aforesaid persons are responsible for the conduct of
the business of the company and for their monetary benefits
continued to discharge noxious and polluting trade effluent of G
the company without complying with the conditions of consent
and mandatory provisions of law. A petition under Section 482

- of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 14119 of 1985 by M/s Modi Carpets Ltd. & Ors. for H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A quashing the aforesaid complaint and also for other reliefs.
Vide order dated 5.11.1985, the High Court stayed further
proceedings in the complaint case. On the objection of the
Board that the Principal Bench at Allahabad had no territorial
jurisdiction to decide the petition, th~ first respondent herein
B filed a petition under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. before
Lucknow Bench of the High Court being Crl. Misc. Case No.
1347 of 2001. In the said petition, it was alleged that the first
respondent, br. Bhupendra Kumar, Modi, Joint Managing
--~
Director was not concerned with day-to-day business of the
company and cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed
C by the Company, hence, it was prayed that Complaint Case No.
44of1988 filed by the appellant-Board be quashed.
(5) The appellant-Board filed a counter affidavit beforeithe
High Court wherein it was -stated that the complaint could not
be quashed at- the initial stage and whether a person is
D responsible for conduct of day-to-day business of the Company
or not, is a question which has to be _decided by evidence. In
any event it was stated that the comRlaint discloses materials -
to proceed 1further.
(6) By impugned order dated 29;11.2004, the High Court
E quashed the complaint so far as -it rel ated to respondent No.1
1

on the main ground that there was no materia~ on record to show
that respondent No.1 was, at the relevant time, incharge and
responsible to the company for conduct of its busin·ess.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Lucknow Bench; the
F appellant-Board has filed the above ~ppeal by way of .special
leave.
(7) Heard Mr. Rakesh K. Khannaj learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the appellant-Board _and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned
senior counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent.
1

G (8) The only point for consideration in this appeal is
whether the complaint of U.P. Pollutiori Control Board discloses
any material ag,ainst the first respon'dent i.e., Dr. Bhupendra
Kumar. Modi, Joint Managing Director, particularly, his contr.ol
over the decision making· process of the Company and whether
H the High Court was justified in'quashing the same in so far as
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 357
KUMAR MODI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi in a petition under Section 482 A
Cr.P.C.
(9) The High Court while accepting the case of Dr.
Bhupendra Kumar Modi perused the complaint of the Board.
According to it, nowhere it is specifically stated in the complaint
and there is also no material on record to show that Dr. B
Bhupendra Kumar Modi was, at the relevant time, in-charge
and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business.
The High Court also concluded that there was no specific
allegation that at the relevant time, respondent No.1 was in-
charge of the Company or was looking after the day-to-day c ,
affairs of the company or that the offence has been committed
with his consent or connivance. By arriving such conclusion the
High Court quashed the prosecution in so far as the first
respondent herein is concerned. In the same order, the High
Court made it clear that the prosecution is free to proceed D
against other persons mentioned in the complaint.
(10) In order to answer the questions raised, we verified
)
the complaint (Annexure - 8) of the Board laid under Section
44 of the Act. Section 25 (1) of the Act makes it mandatory for
every new industry to obtain consent of the "Board" for bringing E
into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of its trade .
effluent into the stream or well or on land as defined in Section
2 of the Act read with its amending Act [Act No. 44 of 1978].
The Company and all the persons in-charge of the day-to-day
affairs are required to abide by the mandatory provisions for
operating their industrial establishment. The complaint further F
shows that the Company had applied for the grant of consent
of the Board for the discharge of its trade effluent on
29.09.1982 which was received by the Board on 04.10.1982
and after considering all aspects the conditional consent order
No. 83/170 dated 22.01.1983 was issued in favour of th~ G
Company. According to the Complainant, the Company had not
sent the report for proper compliance of the condition which was
imposed. Accordingly, the site of the Company at Raebareli had
been inspected by the officers of the Board on 07.06.1983 and
on 13. 09. 1984 in the presence of representatives of the H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Company. According to the Board, the accused persons
intentionally failed to comply with the conditions of consent order
dated 22.01.1983 and to construct proper effluent treatrtient
plant and discharging without.consent of the Board. This has
been asserted in para 15 of the complaint. In para 16, it is
8 stated that the accused persons, namely, 2-13 are Chairman,
Managing Director/Joint Managing Director, Directors,
Secretaries and Managers of Mis Modi Carpets Ltd., Raebareli,
who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the
Company and also for not complying the conditions and for not
C constructing proper plant for the treatment of their highly polluting
trade effluent so as to conform to the standard laid down by the
Board. In the same paragraph, it i.s further asserted that the
accused persons are deliberately avoiding the provisions of
Section 25 of the .Act for which ~hey are punishable under
Section 44 read with Section 47 Qf the Act. In para 17 of the
D complaint, it is specifically stated that at the time of commission
of offence all the persons were in-charge of the business of the
Company and responsible for the day-to-day working of the
Company and also for conducting of the business of the
Company and continuous commissioning of offence under
E Section 44 of the Act and the construction of effluent treatment
plant can be taken up only wh~n these senior authorities
resolved to do so. It is further stated .that the offence mentioned
in the complaint is being continuously committed against the
society at large, animals and aquatic life in particular because
F of their personal monetary gains. In para 21, it is specifically
stated
,
that the Chairman,• .
Directors
. I
and Secretaries are the
brain and nerve centre of Modi ,Carpets and conducting the + ,
business of the Company which has been di~charging its trade
effluents into stream for which they are to be punished under
Section 44 read with Section 47 of the Act.· in para 22, it is
G asserted that under the provisions: .of Sectiof'1 4 ~ of the Act where
an offence has been committed :By a Company every person,
who at- the time of commission of the offence
' '
was. in-charge
\ .
of
and responsible to the Company ;for the conduct of the business
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to be
H p~oceeded and punished accordingly.
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 359
KUMAR MODI &ANR. (P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(11) Apart from the above specific averments, the Board A
1 has also placed a letter dated 22.01.1983 granting conditional
consent .to respondent No.1, copy of the inspection reports,
various letters/communications and their reply as Annexures P-
1 to P-7.
(12) Among the various provisions of the Act. we are more B
concerned about Section 47 which speaks about offences by
companies which reads thus:
"47. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under
this Act has been committed by a company, every person
who at the time the offence was committed was in charge c
of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct
of, the business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence -and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section D
shall render any such person liable to any punishment
provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all
due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), E
where an o,ffence under this Act has been committed by a
company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or_ connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such F
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-
(a) "company" means any body corporate, and G
includes a firm or other association of individuals;
... and
(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in
,,:._
the firm."
Section 25 speaks about restrictions on new outlets and new H
300 ,SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R.

A discharges and Section 26 relates to provision regarding
existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent. Section 44
speaks about penalty for contravention of Section 25 or Section
26 ... ~ .. ••
,·."'
''(1'3) 1.t is not in dispute that the first respondent before
B letting out trade effluent into a sfre'am or a river has to satisfy
certain conditions in terms of the provisions of the Act and the
order of the authorities concerned.' It is also not in dispute that
without a consent order by the Board the Company cannot let
out untreated effluent into a land.or stream or river. Though a
c consent order was issued by the Board it has been specifically
stated in the complaint that those conditions have not been
fulfilled by the Company. In those circumstances, in the interest
of the public health, the appellant-Board through its officers laid
a complaint against the persons, who are in charge of the day-
to-day affairs and in the decision making process. There is no
D need to place all the materials at the threshold. However, on
' '
perusal of the complaint and the relevant materials in the form
·of documents, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
(Pollution) entertained the same,' and issued summons to the
named persons in the complaint.· Inasmuch as the High Court
E quashed the complaint against ttle first respondent herein who
is a Joint Managing Directoli of the Company, we ar~
concerned about the averments/allegations I
against him in
respect of his concern )n the day-to-day affairs and in the
decision 1 making process. We have already referred to the
F relevant 'averments/materials .adverted to in the complaint.
Before going into the reasoning and conclusion of the High
Court for quashing the complaint against the first respondent
herein, let us consider various decisions of this Court with
reference to the very same provi~ions, namely, .Sections 44 and
G 47 of the Act as well as the jurisdiction of.the High Court under
Section 482 of Cr.PC. ,,
(.14) It is settled legal position that at the stage of issuing
process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the
same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there
H
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 361
KUMAR MODI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] .
are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In A
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and
Others, (1976) 3 SCC 736, this Court has held that it is not the
province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion
on the merits or demerits of the case. It was further·held that
whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take B
into consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the
-..__ complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support
of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted
discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially
exerqised by him. It was further held that once the Magistrate
has exercised his discretion, it is not for the High Court or even
c
this Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the
Magistrate or to examine their case on merits with a view to
find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved,

. would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. This Court
has held that in the following cases, an order of the Magistrate
issuing process against the accused can be quashed:
D

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the
same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case
against the accused or the complaint does· not disclose the E
essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against
the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently
absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent
person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient F
~
ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been
based either on no evidence or on materials which are
wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and G
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
'*
defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a
complaint by legally competent authority and the like."
:- -
No doubt the grounds mentioned above are purely illustrative
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e >-

A and it provides only gujdelines to inciicate contingencies where
the High Court can quash the proceedings. Though argument
was advanced based on the decision in State of Kamataka
vs. Pratap Chand and Others, (1,981) 2 sec 335, it was
decided in a case relating to conviction under Drugs and
B Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not quashing of a complaint based
merely on a petition or an affidavit. Hence, the said decision
is not applicable to the case on hand.
(15) Though reliance was placed on a decision of this
Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram kishan
c Rohtagi and Others, (1983) 1 sec 1, a perusal of the said
decision makes it clear that the complaint in that case was
vague as regards the Directors arid the Court has concluded
that no offence revealed against them, hence the High Court
was justified in quashing the proceedings against the Directors.
0 (16) The next decision pressed into service by the first
respondent is State of Haryana vs. Brij Lal Mittal and Others, ....
(1998) 5 SCC 343. In the said decision, after finding that except
a bald statement in the complaint that the respondents therein "
were Directors of the manuft!cturers; there is no other allegation
. to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in charge of the
E Company and also responsible to the.Company for the conduct
of its business. This Court agreed with the High Court in
quashing the prosecution against the three Directors.
(17) Reliance was also pla¢ed on the decision in Na/in -.
Thakor and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2003) 12
F SCC 461. This Court, after finding that there is no allegation I
r
as regards the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 47 and ...
the learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons without ~

application of mind, allowed th e appeal and set aside the
1

l
•-
summons issued against the appellan_ts therein.
G (18) In the earlier part of owr order, we have extensively
adverted to the sp_ecific avermerits/assertions in the.complaint
of the Board with reference to all the \officers i.e. named lo
persons in the,complaint including the first-respondent who is I
Joint Managing Director of the Company. In those ...\,.
H circumstances, we are of the view that the above-mentioned
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 363
-"" KUMAR MODI &ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

decisions relied on by the first respondent are not helpful to the A
stand taken by him. It is useful to refer the decision in the case
of U. P. Pollution Control Board vs Messrs Modi Distillery and
Others, (1987) 3 sec 684. The said case, by special leave,
was directed against the judgment and order of the High Court
of Allahabad dated 16.05.1984 setting aside, in its revisional B
jurisdiction, order'of the CJM, Ghaziabad dated 03:11.1983
directing issue of process against the respondents therein on
a complaint filed byi the appellant Pollution Control Board under
Section 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974. The issue involved therein was whether the Chairman, C
Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and Members of the Board
of Directors of Mis Modi Industries Limited, the company
owning the industrial unit called M/s Modi Distillery could be
proceeded against on a complaint against the said industrial
unit. Learned Single Judge of the High Court found that there
was no sufficient ground against the respondent inasmuch as D
the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an
offence punishable under Section 44 for the admitted
contravention of Sections 25( 1) and 26 read with Section 4 7
of the Act. The facts narrated above clearly show that the same
is identical to the case on hand. This Court taking note of the E
provisions particularly, Sections 25 (1) (2) and 26 as well as
Sections 44 and 47 and the averments in the complaint after
finding that prima facie materials are available and all the
issues to be dealt with by the Judicial Magistrate at the time of
trial, set aside the order of the High Court interfering with the F
order of CJM directing issue of process to the respondents and
directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial in
accordance with law. No doubt, it is true that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court quashed the proceedings on the
ground that there could be no vicarious liabiUtr saddled on the
Chairman, Vice-chairman, Managing Director and other G
members of the Board of Directors of the Company under
Section 47 of the Act unless there was a prosecution of the
Company i.e. M/s Modi Industries Ltd. In the case on hand, it
is not in dispute that the Company has been shown as first
accused in the complaint apart from including Chairman, H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Managing Director, Jt. Managing1 Director, General Manager,
- ...

Directors, Commercial Manager ,and Company Secretary as +
well as their specific role in the day:-to-day affairs and decision
making process.
(19) U. P. Pollution~Control B,oard vs. Mohan Meakins Ltd.
B and Others, (2000) 3 S C 745 is ,a case filed by the very same
appellant- U.P. Pollution Control ·Board and in similar
circumstances this Court interfered with the order of the High
Court as well as the order of the :Sessions Court quashing the --.l-_..

similar complaint. In the said case, the Board initiated
c proceedings for prosecuting Mohan Meakins Ltd: and its

-
Directors for discharging trade efflu~nts in the river Gomti which
is a tributary of the Ganga. The learned trial Judge on satisfying
the averments in the complaint, of the Board issued process
against the accused at the fin~t instance. The respondents/
Company and its Directors desired the trial Court to discharge
D them without even making their, first appearance in the Court.
When the attempt made for that failed, they moved for exemption
from appearance in the Court. In the meanwhile, the Sessions \
Judge, Lucknow entertained a revision moved by the accused
against the order issuing process to them and quashed it on
E the erroneous ground that the Magistrate did not pass a
speaking order for issuing such summons. The CJM before
whom the complaint was filed thereafter passed a detailed
order on 25.04.1984 and again'issued process to the accused.
The order was again challenged by the accused in revision
F before the Sessions Court and ~he same Sessions Judge again
quashed it by order dated 25.08.1984. The Board moved
before the High Court in a revision against the said order.
Though the revision was moved in 1984 itself it took 15 years
for the High Court to dismiss 1the revision petition as per the
order passed by a learned :Single Judge on 27.07.1999.
G Questioning the same, the Board filed special leave petition
before this Court and ultimately leave was granted by this Court.
It is useful to refer the facts' and other details stated in the ..
-
I

complaint as noted by this Coµrt. Thomas, J. (as he then was)
speaking for the Bench in paras 10 and 11 observed thus:-
H
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 365
KUMAR MODI &ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

10.......... In the complaint filed by the appellant before A
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Company (M/s- Mohan
Meakins Ltd.) has been arrayed as the first accused and
the other persons who were arrayed as Accused 2 to 10
were described as the Directors of the said Company. The
11th person arrayed in the complaint as accused is B
described as the Manager of the Company. The
averments in the complaint show that the Distillery Unit of
the Company at Daliganj, Lucknow, has been discharging
-- ~ noxious trade effluents into River Gomti and causing
continuous pollution of the river. It was further averred in
the complaint that on 19-9-1982, samples of trade effluents
c

- were collected by the officers empowered in this behalf,
from the drain "just outside the plant inside the factory", and
from the irrigation plant out of which the effluents were
pumped into the river. When the samples were analysed
in the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Lucknow, it D
was revealed that the quality of effluents was beyond the
standard laid down for the purpose. Therefore, it is alleged
that the Company has violated Section 24 of the Act* and
thereby the Company is guilty of the offence under Section
43 of the Act. E
11. Where an offence under the Act has been committed
by a company every person who was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business
of the company is also made guilty of the offence by the
statutory creation. Any director, manager or other officer F
of the company, who has consented to or connived in the
commission of the said offence, is made liable for the
punishment of th~ offence."
This Court has also noted further allegations in the complaint I
against Managers or Directors of the Company which are as G
under:-
"12. In the above context what is to be looked at during
-'
the stage of issuing process is whether there are
allegations in the complaint by which the Managers or
Directors of the Company can also be proceeded against, H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A when the Company is alleged to be guilty of the offence.
Para 12 of the complaint reads thus:
"That the accused persons from 2 to 11 are
Directors/" Managers/ I
Partners of M/s Mohan
•
Meakins Distillery, Daliganj, Lucknow, as mentioned
B in this complaint are responsible for constructing
the proper works and plant for the treatment of their
highly polluting trade effluent
I
so as to conform to the
standard laid down by the Board. Aforesaid
accused persons are deliberately avoiding to abide
c by the provisions of Sections 24 and 26 of the
aforesaid Act which are punishable respectively
under Sections 43 and 44 of the aforesaid Act, for
which not only the Company but its Directors,
Managers, Secretary and all other responsible
officers of the accused Company, responsible for
D
the conduct of its business are also liable in
·accordance with the provision of Section 4 7 of the
Act."
The appellant has further sta~ed in para 23 of the complaint
· that "the Chairman, Managing Directors and Directors of
E
the Company are the persons responsible for the act and
therefore, they are liable. to be proceeded against
according to the law".
Taking note of the averments in the complaint against the
F Directors, Managers and the ingredients of Section 47 of the
Act, this Court. declined to accept the reasoning of the High
Court and Sessions Court for quashing the complaint thereby
set aside both the orders and directed the trial Court to proceed
with the case in accordance with law.
(20) In the case on hand w~ich is also similar to Mohan
G Meakins Ltd. had commenced its journey in the year 1985,
nonetheless lapse of such long period cannot be a reason to
absolve the respondents from the trial. In a matter of this nature, -.
particularly, when it affects public health if it is ultimately proved,
courts cannot afford. to deal lightly with cases involving pollution
H of air and water. The message must go to all concerned
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. DR. HUPENDRA 367
KUMAR MODI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

persons whether small or big that the courts will share the A
parliamentary concern and legislative intent of the Act to check
the escalating pollution level and restore the balance of our
environment. Those who discharge noxious polluting effluents
into streams, rivers or any other water bodies which inflicts on
the public health at large, should be dealt with strictly de hors B
to the technical objections. Since escalating pollution level of
our environment affects on the life and health of human beings
as well as animals, the courts should not deal with the
prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental
Acts in a causal or routine manner.
c
(21) It is our endeavour to point out that the High Court has
quashed the complaint arising in an environmental matter in a
casual manner by exercising power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. This Court has held exercise of power under Section
482 of the Code is the exception and under the rule there are
three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may D
be exercised i.e. (a) to give effect to an order of the Court; (b)
to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; (c) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is true that it is neither possible
nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. While exercising inherent E
powers either on civil or criminal jurisdiction, the Court does
not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. The inherent
jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution. It should be exercised to do real and
substantial justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that F
authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to
prevent abuse. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint,
the Court may examine the question of fact. When complaint
is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant had alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are G
accepted in toto. When exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court could not ordinarily embark
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A would not be sustained. To put it-clear, 1it is the function of the
trial Judge to do so. The Court must be careful to see that its t
decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. If the allegations set out in the complaint
8 do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken
by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the
same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Crl. Procedure Code. However, it is not necessary that there
should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find
C out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
(22) In the light of the above discussion and in view of the
specific averments in the complaint as, referred to by us in the
earlier paragraphs coupled with the statutory provisions,
namely, Sections 25, 26, 44 and 47 ofithe Act, we are unable
to share the view expressed by the High Court in quashing the
D complaint insofar as the first respondent herein. Accordingly,
we set aside the same. The Special Judicial Magistrate
(Pollution) is directed to proceed With the complaint and
dispose ,of the same in accordance with law. If the first
respondent herein applies for disperising with his personal
E presence in the Court, after mal<ing the first appearance, the
Special Court can exempt him from cohtinuing to appear in the
Court by imposing any condition whi~h the Court deems fit.
Subject to the above observation, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and dir~ct the Special Judicial
F Magistrate (Pollution) to proceed with the case in accordance
with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the
merits of the contents of the complaint and it is for the Special
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The Criminal
G appeal is allowed.
R.P. Appeal allowed.

¥-