Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 806 (JHR)

Sankat Taran Saha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-30

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Factory Case No. 13 of 2001, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The petitioner has also challenged the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said case. 3. Factory Case No. 13 of 2001 was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tenughat, by the Factory Inspector, Bokaro Circle No.2, Bokaro, stating that during the inspection made at the Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Bokaro, it was found that effluents of the factory were being discharged in Damodar river, which was polluting the river. Alleging that proper arrangements for stopping effluents from going into the river were not made, the complaint case was filed against the petitioner, who was then working as Chief Engineer in Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura. On the basis of the written complaint, cognizance was taken by the Court below for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that filing of the complaint, as also the impugned order passed by the Court below, are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, proper arrangements were made for stopping the effluents from going into the river and in fact, no effluent was going into the river. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the notice, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, wherein, it is stated that large size lagoons had been constructed, in which effluents were discharged on daily basis. It is stated that the discharge met at an entry point and sufficient time and area for settlement of the solid particles were allowed during the course of flow and the particles got settled down and at last only clean and clear water was allowed to pass through a wall which was situated diagonally opposite to the entry point at the farthest end of the lagoon. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that proper arrangements had been made and there was no scope for filing the complaint in the Court below and accordingly, the order taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner are fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that proper arrangements had been made and there was no scope for filing the complaint in the Court below and accordingly, the order taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner are fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of the Court towards the counter affidavit filed in the case, wherein, it is stated that at the time of inspection, it was found that ash pond having insufficient capacity was almost filled up by disposed ash and there was no flow control arrangement from the filled pond to Damodar river, which was ruthlessly polluted, creating danger to the environment and threat to the ecology. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that there was clear violation of Section 12 of the Factories Act, making out the offence against the petitioner, being the occupier of the factory, under Section 92 of the said Act. 6. Section 12 of the Factories Act, reads as follows:- “12. Disposal of wastes and effluents--(1) Effective arrangements shall be made in every factory for the treatment of wastes and effluents due to the manufacturing process carried on therein, so as to render them innocuous, and for their disposal. (2) The State Government may make rules prescribing the arrangements to be made under sub-section (1) or requiring that the arrangements made in accordance with sub-section (1) shall be approved by such authority as may be prescribed." 7. For non-compliance of Section 12 of the Factories Act, Section 92 of the said Act is the penal provision. The fact whether the arrangements made by the petitioner for stopping the effluents from going into the river were adequate and effective or not, cannot be decided at this stage. It is the clear case of the prosecution that such arrangements were not adequate and effective. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that there can be no interference by this Court in the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, nor can there be any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this stage. 8. I do not find any merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.