ORDER This M.Cr.C. filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeks for quashment of the private complaint bearing no.7724/2008 registered against the petitioner including the order dated 12.10.2011 seeking cognizance of the said complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ( Act of 1974 for brevity) for having violated the provision of section 25(1) of the Act of 1974. 1. The criminal revision preferred against the said order dated 12.10.2011 has also been dismissed on 08.02.2012 by Revisional Court viz. the Xth Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.538/2011. 2. The basic and primary ground of challenge in this petition is that the offence as contemplated under Section 25 (1) of the Act of 1974 is not made out inasmuch as the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 does not allege that the petitioners took any steps to establish any industrial operation or process or any treatment and disposal system or/and extension and addition thereto which is likely to cause water pollution without the previous consent of State Board. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal in M.Cr.C. on the ground of the Act of 1974 has been promulgated for achieving the larger public interest for ensuring ecological balance and preventing environmental degradation by preventing, controlling and regulating the pollution of water and therefore technicalities as alleged herein ought to be ignored if they come in way of achieving the said solemn object and the petitioner should not be permitted to get away from the rigours of the provision of the Act of 1974 at the very initial stage when the trial is still to begin. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 25, which provides for restriction on new outlets, as follows:- 25. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 25, which provides for restriction on new outlets, as follows:- 25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharge.- (1) subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board - (a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or (b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage; or (c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage: Provided that a person in the process of taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process immediately before the commencement of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act 1988, for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent, within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application. (2) An application for consent of the State Board under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. (3) The State Board may make such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred to in subsection (1) and in making any such inquiry shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (3) The State Board may make such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred to in subsection (1) and in making any such inquiry shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (4) The State Board may- (a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1), subject to such conditions as it may impose, being- (i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and b) of subsection (1) of section 25, conditions as to the point of discharge of sewage or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet for discharge of sewage; (ii) in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from the land or premises from which the discharge or new discharge is to be made: and (iii) that the consent will be valid only for such period as may be specified in the order, and any such conditions imposed shall be binding on any person establishing or taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process or treatment and disposal system of extension or addition thereto, or using the new or altered outlet, or discharging the effluent from the land or premises aforesaid; or (b) refuse such consent for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) Where, without the consent of the State Board, any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, is established, or any steps for such establishment have been taken or a new or altered outlet is brought into use for the discharge of sewage or a new discharge of sewage is made, the State Board may serve on the person who has established or taken steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, or using the outlet, or making the discharge, as the case may be, a notice imposing any such conditions as it might have imposed on an application for its consent in respect of such establishment, such outlet or discharge. (6) Every State Board shall maintain a register containing particulars of the conditions imposed under this section and so much of the register as relates to any outlet, or to any effluent, from any land or premises shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person interested in, or affected by such outlet, land or premises, as the case may be, or by any person authorized by him in this behalf and the conditions so contained in such register shall be conclusive proof that the consent was granted subject to such conditions. (7) The consent referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry of a period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf complete in all respects to the State Board. (8) For the purposes of this section and sections 27 and 30- (a) the expression “ new or altered outlet” means any outlet which is wholly or partly constructed on or after the commencement of this Act or which (whether so constructed or not) is substantially altered after such commencement. (b) the expression “new discharge” means a discharge which is not, as respects the nature and composition, temperature, volume, and rate of discharge of the effluent substantially a continuation of a discharge made within the preceding twelve months (whether by the same or a different outlet), so however that a discharge which is in other respects a continuation of previous discharge made as aforesaid shall not be deemed to be a new discharge by reason of any reduction of the temperature or volume or rate of discharge of the effluent as compared with the previous discharge. 5. It is further relevant to reproduce Section 44 prescribing penalty inter alia for contravention of Section 25 as follows. 44. Penalty for contravention of section 25 or section 26- Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 25 or section 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 1[one year and six months] but which may extend to six years and with fine. 6. Reading of Section 25 indicates that it prohibits and restricts establishing of new source/outlets discharging pollutants without the previous consent of the State Board. 6. Reading of Section 25 indicates that it prohibits and restricts establishing of new source/outlets discharging pollutants without the previous consent of the State Board. Thus, the very foundation of Section 25 is that new outlets or new source of discharge of pollutants are established, meaning thereby that provisions of Section 25 is attracted when for the first time discharge of pollutants by industry or by way of operation process or by any outlet of any nature commences and, therefore, as a corollary the said provision would be inapplicable to an ongoing process of pollution for which Section 26, has been enacted. 7. For convenience section 26 of Act of 1974 is reproduced hereunder - 26. Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent- Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a 1[stream or well or sewer or on land], the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the modification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section 2[shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette]. 8. Section 26 thus deals with existing discharge of sewage and trade effluents. In the instance case, perusal of the complaint (P-1) indicates in paragraph 5 that the industry of the accused no.2 is situated in a residential area which is being operated since number of years without prior permission of the Board and despite issuance various letters and notices the accused no.1 and 2 are continuing to operate their industry and cause water pollution. These allegations in the complaint which are confined in para 5 of the said complaint indicate clearly that the offence of pollution being complained of is not arising out of newly established process but is an ongoing process which is existing and continuing since long. These allegations in the complaint which are confined in para 5 of the said complaint indicate clearly that the offence of pollution being complained of is not arising out of newly established process but is an ongoing process which is existing and continuing since long. The evidence that is placed on record in the shape of the statement of R.K.Jain, Senior Scientist and R.K.Gupta, Regional Officer, who are functionaries of the M.P.Pollution Control Board, indicate that the industry in question is operational since 1980 but does not indicate that the process by which the alleged pollution is being caused is a newly established one. 9. The framing of charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure is an important step in the process of trial as it informs the accused of the exact provision of law which the accused violated by describing the allegations in a precise and concise manner so that the plea of guilt or innocent can be recorded and in case the accused pleads innocent, the trial commences by adducing of offence. The charge in a criminal case is like an issue framed in civil suit which decides the four corners within which the trial is to proceed. Therefore, accurate framing of charge assumes relevance. If charge is in- accurately framed, then serious adverse consequences may ensue to either the prosecution or the accused who are unable to initiate conduct and conclude the trial in absence of the defined parameter of the exact offence/offences for which the trial is being held. 10. Testing the factual matrix of the present case, on the anvil of the above principle, it is crystal clear that the allegations alleged by the Pollution Board were regarding offence defined in Section 26 whereas the charge has been framed under section 25(1). The requirements of the prosecution to establish the offences defined under Section 26 on one hand and 25(1) on the other, are distinct, as the basic ingredient forming the offences under both the above said sections require different set of evidence to establish and correspondingly different defence of accused. 11. Thus framing of charge under Section 25(1) read with Section 44 Act of the Water Pollution and Control Act, 1974 cannot be countenanced in law. 12. Thus the prima facie view arising from the material available reflects a prima facie case under section 26 and not under Section 25(1) as alleged. 13. 11. Thus framing of charge under Section 25(1) read with Section 44 Act of the Water Pollution and Control Act, 1974 cannot be countenanced in law. 12. Thus the prima facie view arising from the material available reflects a prima facie case under section 26 and not under Section 25(1) as alleged. 13. Pertinently though the contravention in the impugned charge is shown to be of Section 25(1) the Act of 1974 which is incorrect in view of the findings recorded herein above as the allegations and evidence recorded, disclose contravention of Section 26 of the Act of 1974, but since the penal provision of Section 44 is common for both the Sections, this Court deems it appropriate that this Miscellaneous Criminal Case is disposed of with following directions:- 1. The impugned charge dated 12.10.2011 and Criminal Case No.7724/2008 is set aside. 2. The decision rendered by the trial Court dated 12.10.2011 taking cognizance of the offence alongwith the Revisional order dated 08.02.2012 the Criminal Revision 538/2011 are set aside. 3. The trial Court is directed to frame charge under the appropriate provision on the basis of complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof and proceed ahead with the trial Court. No order as to costs.