JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - Sri K. K. Sethi, Factory Inspector, Saharanpur, inspected Pilkhani Distillery and Chemical Works, district Saharanpur, on 30 May 1977, and found that there was neither any effective arrangement for the disposal of effluents nor plans for disposal of effluents were approved by the Effluent Board. 2. The Factory Inspector, therefore, filed a complaint for the prosecution of Narendra Lal and R. N. Chopra the occupier and manager respectively of the distillery, for breach of S. 12 of the Factories Act read with rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, punishable under S. 92 of the Factories Act. Narendra Lal and R. N. Chopra (hereinafter called the applicants) filed an application to this Court under S. 482 of the code praying that the aforementioned proceedings initiated for the prosecution be quashed. The ground taken in the application was that since plane for disposal of effluents had been submitted to the Effluent Board and were pending with the board for approval or disapproval, the prosecution was misconcieved. 3. The petition filed under S. 482 of the code by the applicants came up for hearing before the Hon'ble J. P. Chaturvedi, J. It was reiterated before him on behalf of the applicants that, since the plans for disposal of effluents had been submitted to the board and were yet pending with the board for approval or disapproval, no prosecution could be initiated against the applicants under S. 12 of the Factories Act. Reliance for this contention was placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Vij (K. L.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1978-I L. L. N. 586), As it appears from the referring order it was held in the aforesaid case : "There was no provision in the rules that after disapproval of the arrangement for disposal of wastes and effluents by the Effluent Board the factory must stop working until fresh plans are approved by the board and, therefore, it could not be said that if the factory continued manufacturing after disapproval of the plans it violated the provisions of S. 12 of the Factories Act." Hon'ble J. P. Chaturvedi, J., found himself in disagreement with the view expressed in the ease of Vij (K. L.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (vide supra), and accordingly referred the following question for being answered by a larger Bench i "Whether a factory can or cannot be prosecuted for an offence under S. 92 read with S. 12 of the Factories Act and rules framed thereunder in case the arrangement for effective disposal of the wastes and effluents proposed by the factory has either been disapproved or not approved by the Effluent Board. 4. In State v. V. M. Singhi and others, (Government Appeal No. 5 of 1970), decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 12 September 1973, a similar question came up for consideration. After taking notice of S. 12 of the Act and rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, it was held in that case that if the board disapproved the plans submitted to it by a factory for the first time under sub-rule (7), the factory could submit fresh proposals to the board. The Court then proceeded to examine as to what shall be the position in between the date of commencement of rule 18 and the date on which the factory submitted its plans to the board for the first time, and what shall be the position during the period in between the disapproval of the plans submitted by the board and the submission of fresh plans. It was observed : " We find that there can be two interregnums in each case. It was observed : " We find that there can be two interregnums in each case. The first interregnum will occur in between the commencement of rule 18 and the time when the plans submitted by a factory for the first time are disapproved by the Effluent Board. The second interregnum shall occur between the disapproval of the plans first submitted and submission and approval or disapproval of the fresh plan. The question is what would be the position during these two interregnums." 5. Section 12 (1) of the Act requires that effective arrangement shall be made in every factory for the disposal of wastes and effluents. The provision is mandatory. It should, therefore, be obligatory on the part of a factory to comply with S. 12 (1) of the Act, and make effective arrangement for the discharge of the effluent during the aforesaid two interregnums as well. If a factory does not make arrangement whatsoever for the discharge of the effluents or discharges it in a wantonly careless and negligent manner endangering the health of the general public it is liable to be prosecuted for breach of S. U (1) read with S. 92 of the Act. In view of the above mentioned proposition of law with which we are in complete agreement. 6. There can be no doubt that, even in a case where the plans for the arrangement of disposal of wastes and.effluents submitted by a factory are pending for approval with the Effluent Board and it found that the factory has made no effective arrangement for the treatment of the wastes and effluents, as provided in Sub-sec. (1) of S. 12, the occupier and the manager, can be prosecuted for the breach of that provision of law. It will, thereafter, be for the Court to decide whether or not the arrangement made by the factory for disposal or wastes and effluents is effective. 7. What we have said above relates to a factory which is in existence on the date on which rule 18 came into force. The position in relation to a factory coming into existence after the commencement of the rules is no better. 7. What we have said above relates to a factory which is in existence on the date on which rule 18 came into force. The position in relation to a factory coming into existence after the commencement of the rules is no better. Sub-rule (9) of rule 19 clearly states that a factory which is installed or registered and licensed after the date of enforcement of the rule shall submit a plan in accordance with sub-rule (7) and shall get their arrangement approved before they discharge their effluents. Therefore, if any factory starts discharging its wastes and effluents without getting its plans approved by the Effluent Board, it clearly commits a breach of sub-rule (9) of rule 18, which is punishable under S. 92 read with S. 12 of the Factories Act. 8. In the instant case, it was mentioned in the complaint that the factory came into existence in the year 1958, i.e., after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950. If that is correct it was mandatory for the applicants to comply with sub-rule (9) of rule 18. in a prosecution launched for breach of sub-rule (9) of rule 18 it is not relevant whether the arrangements made by the factory for discharge of wastes and effluents are effective or ineffective. It is sufficient for the prosecution to show that the factory started discharging Its wastes and effluents before getting its plans approved by the Effluent Board. 9. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is as follows : A factory can be prosecuted for an offence under S. 92 read with S. 12 of the Factories Act and rules framed thereunder even if plans for arrangement of Effective disposal of wastes and effluents have neither been approved nor disapproved by the Effluent Board. 10. Let this opinion be placed before the Bench concerned for disposal of the application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.