JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Goa State Pollution Control Board and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. These Petitions can be disposed of by a common order at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused in Criminal Case No. AOA/2039/P&COP/2017/D, on a complaint instituted by the Goa State Pollution Control Board-respondent no. 1 herein, under Sec. 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, for violating the provisions of Sec. 21(5) (v) punishable under Sec. 37 read with Sec. 39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco-daGama, Goa, took cognizance of the complaint and passed the following order: "Issue summons to the accused." 5. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 had preferred Revisions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Revisions were dismissed on 26/11/2020. 6. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 have questioned legality and correctness of the order, issuing process, before this Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would urge that, learned Magistrate has issued process without application of mind, as it is evident from a single line order. Nextly, the learned Counsel argued that the accusations in the complaint, taken together or even otherwise, do not constitute offences under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 8. In support of the contention that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Others, (2015) 12 SCC 420 , wherein the Apex Court has held that, "there must be a sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered alongwith the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., the accused is answerable before the Criminal Court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Sec. 204 of the Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Ss. 190/204 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court." 9. Further, in paragraph 23, the Apex Court, has held that though no formal or speaking or reasoned orders are required at the stage of Ss. 190/204 Cr.P.C., there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting commission of an offence and the statements recorded under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. so as to proceed against the offender. 10. In the case at hand, the impugned order does not indicate application of mind at all, and as a consequence, the impugned orders, issuing process against the petitioners, in the subject criminal case and orders passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 88/2019 and Criminal Revision Application No. 89/2019, are quashed and set aside. 11. All things considered, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint afresh, in accordance with law. 12. Needless to say, all the contentions raised in these Petitions are expressly kept open. 13. All Petitions are allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed, including all Applications therein.