(Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board) Through Regional Officer, Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Bhilai v. Prakashchandra Sahu S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 685 of 2024 (Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board) Through Regional Officer, Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Prakashchandra Sahu S/o Shri Suraj Prasad Sahu Proprietor, M/s Prakashchandra Sahu Lime Stone Mine, Mining Lease Area - 5.13 Hectare, Lime Stone Excavation Unit, Khasra No.339, 344, 357/1, 357/2, 358/1, 358/2, 369, P.H.N. 28, Village Sahgaon, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Khasra No. 307, P. H. N. 29, Village Pathariya, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Address - Quarter No. 10 B, Road - 37, Sector - 4, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhyudaya Singh, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 08/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.4.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (CG) in Complaint Case No.31868/2011, whereby, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Section 5 Rule 4 read with Section 15 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 2. As per the averments in the complaint, the appellant/complainant is the Regional Officer of Chhattisgarh Environmental Conservation Board, which is a Corporate Body. The complaint was filed on 31.12.2011. It was alleged that the respondent/accused, without any requisite authority and sanction, was mining at a capacity of 60,000 metric ton per year. However, in view of the Notification dated 14.9.2006 issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which has superseded the earlier Notification Number S.O. 60( E) dated 27th of January 1994, there is a mandatory requirement of environmental clearance from the Central Government by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly 3 constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, where any projects or activities for mining of minerals is of more than 5 hectares of mining lease area with regard to any excavation. Though the respondent was granted lease w.e.f. 8.12.2005 to 7.12.2035 i.e. for 30 years, but the State had withdrawn such permission for want of sanction in view of the Notification dated 14.9.2006 vide order dated 19.6.2009. When the site inspection was carried out on 5.2.2011 vide Ex.P/1, the activities of the respondent was found in contravention of the Environmental Laws and in gross violation of the Air and Water Act(s). Thereafter, the letters (show cause notice) dated 30.12.2008 and 10.8.2009 were served on the respondent directing him to stop the mining activities. Ultimately, the present complaint has been filed. 3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has examined the Regional Officer, Dr. Anita Savant (PW-1) and Ajay Chandra Maloo (PW-2) and exhibited 9 documents. 4. The respondent(s)/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would 4 support the impugned judgment and would submit that in the Inspection Report (Ex.P/1) itself, it has been categorically mentioned that on the date of the inspection i.e. 5.2.2011, the Inspecting Authority found no evidence of excavation activities at the site. He would further submit that there is no malafide intention on the part of the respondent as he had already stopped the mining activities and the said fact has been duly communicated to the authorities by the letter dated 25.8.2009 (Ex.P/4) and the same has also been admitted by the complainant witness namely Anita Savant (PW-1). He would further submit that although the complaint has been filed by the Regional Officer under Section 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the authorisation has also been filed but the same has not been proved. Similarly, the Notification dated 14.9.2006 has also not been proved in accordance with law. He would further submit that a Circular has been issued with regard to the Clarification regarding applicability of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, on the mining lease of 5 hectares (mining of minerals) and mining leases of 5 hectare (major minerals) and mining leases of minor minerals, which have been operating before 14.9.2006 and it did not require environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 1994. He would further submit that the respondent was duly granted lease for excavation of limestone on 8.12.2005 and immediately thereafter, he applied for necessary 5 sanction. He submits that during pendency of the case, the aforesaid sanction was also accorded by the concerned authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Indisputably, the Complaint Case has been filed by Ajay Chandra Maloo (PW-2), Regional Officer, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board. Though a letter has been duly sent to the concerned authority by the respondent, which has been filed as vide Ex.P/8, yet the Regional Officer has been authorised to file the complaint case. The respondent has also proved the document dated 30.10.2010 vide Ex.D/1 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, whereby, on the application dated 5.1.2009 filed by the respondent with regard to the mining of limestone of capacity 60000 TPA at Khasra No.339, 344, 357/1, 357/2, Village Sahegaon and Patharia, Tehsil Dhamdha District Durg for the area 5.13 hectare, environmental clearance was accorded. After issuance of the notification dated 14.9.2006 (though the same has been filed but not proved), the respondent/accused has duly communicated to the authorities by the letter dated 25.8.2009 (Ex.P/4) with regard to stoppage of the mining activities since 23.6.2009, in response to their communication dated 10.8.2009. Furthermore, in the Inspection Report dated 5.2.2011 itself, at column No.6, it has been categorically mentioned that at the time of inspection, no excavation activity was found. Contrarily to the 6 said document, Ajay Chandra Maloo (PW-2), in para 18 of his cross-examination, stated that on the date of the inspection, mining activities were going on. However, Anita Savant (PW-1), who was also the member of the Inspection Team, admits the fact no such activity was found on the date of inspection. 9. Moreover, Ajay Chandra Maloo (PW-2) in para 3 of his cross- examination materially admits the fact that as per the Notification pertaining to the year 1994, environment clearance was mandatory only in case of mining area of more than 25 hectares, however, in case of the respondent/accused, no such clearance was required till issuance of the Amended Notification dated 14.9.2006. 10. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, this Court does not find any malafide intention on the part of the respondent/accused, as vide letter dated 25.8.2009 ( Ex.P/4), he had duly communicated to the concerned authority with regard to stoppage of the mining activities. The complainant has also failed to prove any contravention of the subject laws and the Act. Furthermore, even on the date of the inspection, no such mining activity was found by the concerned authority. 11. In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another Vs. State of Uttrakhand, reported in 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent 7 perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 12. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna