JUDGMENT M.I. Arun, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27th March 2015, passed in C.C. No. 991/2006 by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Dandeli, the instant appeal is filed by the complainant therein. 2. The complainant - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has filed the complaint on the ground that the City Municipal Council, Dandeli, Haliyal Taluka, Uttara Kannada District, without treating the sewage water was leaving the same into the Kali River and has committed the offences punishable under Sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short "the Act, 1974"). The proceedings were initiated against the accused, who was the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Dandeli from 19.02.2004 to 09.02.2007. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The complainant to prove its case has examined four witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P26(a). The accused has examined himself as DW 1 and got marked Exs. D1 to D7. The trial Court based on the complaint and the evidence let in, framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether the complaint proved beyond reasonable doubt that the City Municipal Council, Dandeli was discharging the sewage effluents to Kali river without any treatment, without consent of the Board and the constituents are exceeding the standards stipulated by the Board which is violation of Section 25 of the Act and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974? 2. If so, whether the accused has proved that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the such offence and therefore, he is not liable for any punishment? & 3. What order or sentence? The trial Court answered the above points as follows and passed the following order: Point No. 1 : In the affirmative; Point No. 2 : In the affirmative; & Point No. 3 : as per final order for the following. "ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974. His bail bond and surety bond are stands cancelled." Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal is filed by the complainant. 5. "ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974. His bail bond and surety bond are stands cancelled." Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal is filed by the complainant. 5. The case of the complainant is that, the trial Court having found that the complainant had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the City Municipal Council, Dandeli was leaving the sewage effluents to Kali river without any treatment, without consent of the Board and the constituents are exceeding the standards stipulated by the Board, which is in violation of Section 25 of the Act, 1974, ought to have convicted the accused herein, who was the Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Dandeli from 19.02.2004 to 09.02.2007 for violating the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 1974, and punish him under Section 44 of the said Act and that the trial Court erred in not convicting him. 6. Per contra, the advocate for the accused justifies the judgment of the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. It is noticed that, based on the evidence let in, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the sewage water was being let into the Kali river without due treatment as required under law by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the trial Court erred in holding the accused not guilty for the said violation by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli? 8. Admittedly, the accused was the Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Dandeli only from 19.02.2004 to 09.02.2007. Though, the City Municipal Council, Dandeli was required to establish sewage treatment plant, treat the sewage and only thereafter let it into the Kali river as contended by the complainant, it was not doing so even prior to 19.02.2004 and even after 09.02.2007 and thereby it is guilty of violating the provisions of the Act, 1974. But the accused was its Commissioner only from 19.02.2004 to 09.02.2007 and what needs to be considered is as to whether he exercised all due diligence during his tenure to have the sewage water treated. 9. Section 48 of the Act, 1974, reads as under: "48. But the accused was its Commissioner only from 19.02.2004 to 09.02.2007 and what needs to be considered is as to whether he exercised all due diligence during his tenure to have the sewage water treated. 9. Section 48 of the Act, 1974, reads as under: "48. Office by Government Department.-Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department 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 section shall render such Head of the Department liable to punishment 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." 10. Admittedly, the City Municipal Council, Dandeli has to be considered as part of the Government for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act, 1974 and the accused is a Public Servant and he cannot be convicted, if he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Considering the evidence let in, the accused has been able to show that, immediately after he came to know about the offence being committed by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli, he took steps to have necessary treatment plant established by writing letters to the concerned departments. Ex. D1 is one such letter, which is written by him to the Regional Office, KSPCB, Karwar for establishing sewage treatment plant. Ex. D5 is the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar to the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru bringing to its notice the requirement for establishment of sewage plant, as requested by the accused herein. 11. These facts as well as the oral evidence let in by the accused goes to show that he exercised due diligence to have the treatment plant established at Dandeli as soon as the violation came to his knowledge. 12. For the said reasons, the trial Court even though it came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act, 1974 was being violated by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli, the accused was able to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of such offence. 12. For the said reasons, the trial Court even though it came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act, 1974 was being violated by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli, the accused was able to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of such offence. As rightly contended by the accused, he does not have the necessary decision making powers or finance to establish a sewage treatment plant in the City Municipal Council, Dandeli. He has to take necessary permissions and sanctions from various authorities of the Government. Once the violation of the provisions of the Act, 1974 by the City Municipal Council, Dandeli is brought to his notice he has taken steps to correspond with the concerned authorities in this regard. 13. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be expected to do more and as per Section 48 of the Act, 1974, once the head of department is able to prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such commission of offence, he cannot be held guilty of the offence alleged against him. The trial Court for the said reason has rightly acquitted the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.