High Court · 2025
Case Details
Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.11013 of 20251.S.Saravana Karthik 2.R.Ramesh3.B.Rajendiran4.M.Sreenivasa Reddy5.P.Pugazhendhi.....PetitionersVsThe State Rep. ByThe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Vellore Range,Vellore......RespondentPrayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet. For petitioners : Mr.T.P.PrabakaranFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, thereby dismissing the petition seeking discharge.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2015 at about 24.00 hours at Arkay Leather Company, Phase-I, SIPCOT, Raipet, about ten persons drowned to death into the leather industries effluent sludge, when the compound wall which was recently constructed for the Secure Land Fill (hereinafter referred to as “SLF”) tank collapsed at Ranipet SIDCO Finished Leather Effluent Treatment Company Limited. Therefore, the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.35 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 285 & 304(ii) of IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.91 of 2024. While pending adjudication for framing of charges, 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025the petitioner filed a petition seeking discharge from all the charges and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9 in the case. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, being Monitoring Committee Members, had actively participated in the construction of an unauthorized additional SLF tank by engaging the tenth accused, a civil contractor, and that they negligently handled hazardous waste by supporting the decision taken by the Directors to transport the semi-liquid untreated slurry to the additional SLF through the said contractor. However, the said allegations are not supported by any material evidence collected during the course of investigation. He further submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Monitoring Committee Members only to monitor the performance of the member units, as per the resolution dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Board of Directors of Common Effluent Treatment Plant. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
45. As per the said resolution, the duty of the Monitoring Committee Members is to initiate serious action against the member units that discharge their effluents into the CETP by bypassing the metering system. Such defaulting units shall be disconnected for the CETP conveying line for a period of three months and penalty shall be imposed. Further, if any member unit fails to comply with the circulars issued regarding the discharge of effluents during shutdown periods, the same shall be reported to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board authorities for taking further appropriate action. Therefore, the petitioners are in no way connected with the alleged acts attributed to them by the prosecution. However, the Trial Court, without properly considering the above facts and the limited role of the petitioners, dismissed the petition seeking discharge from all the charges levelled against them.6. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reveals that there are totally fourteen accused in this case, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A4 to A6, A8 & A9. The accused A1 to A3 are the Directors of Ranipet SIDCO Finished Leather Effluent 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025Treatment Company Limited. It is alleged that they decided to construct an additional SLF tank for storing dry sludge in the year 2013 and without adhering to the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board, without obtaining consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and without ensuring structural stability and quality assurance, they constructed the unauthorized SLF during the year 2014, entrusting the construction work to A10 to the tune of Rs.83,14,742/-. It is further alleged that due to power maintenance and operation, three floating aerators in the equalization tank became faulty in the year 2012. Instead of replacing them on time, they had purchased submersible mixers in the year 2012 and erected them only in January 2015, just before the incident.7. Due to the delayed and negligent attitude of A1 to A3, the actual process that was required to be carried out in the equalization tank i.e., homogenization of the effluent (mixing process), had not been performed for nearly two years prior to the occurrence. Further, A1 to A3, on their own, decided to clean the untreated effluent slurry that had accumulated in the equalization tank, in order to facilitate the erection of 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6the newly purchased submersible mixers. For this purpose, they independently engaged a contractor to carry out the cleaning work. In execution of the said work, the contractor hired three tipper lorries and one JCB and transported 709 load of untreated effluent slurry within eleven days and dumped into the newly constructed unauthorized SLF tank.8. The work performance of the contractor was closely monitored by the Monitoring Committee members viz., A4 to A9. They had extracted the work from the contractor and did not assume any responsibility for the operations, yet they are alleged to have negligently handled the hazardous waste. They also supported the decision taken by the A1 to A3. Further, as per established procedure, only solid waste, after undergoing various effluent treatment processes, in the form of dry sludge, is supposed to be stored in the SLF. However, in the present case, semi-liquid untreated effluent was stored in the SLF, contrary to these requirements, allegedly by A1 to A9. Due to the excessive hydraulic pressure of the untreated effluent slurry, classified as hazardous waste, the wall of the unauthorised SLF tank collapsed at 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025midnight on 30/31.01.2025. Consequently, the untreated effluent slurry flowed to the adjacent industry, resulting in the drowning and death of ten innocent works on the spot due to asphyxia.9. In support of the allegations, several list of witnesses deposed regarding the overt act of the petitioners herein. Further, on a perusal of the statement of L.Ws.1, 2, 4 & 5, recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the materials collected during the investigation, it is evident that there are sufficient materials available to frame charges against the petitioners. In fact, they also actively participated in the construction of unauthorized additional SLF tank by engaging the contractor, who is arrayed as A10 and also negligently handled hazardous waste. Therefore, the statement further revealed that the three floating type aerators provided in the equalization tank of RSFLET were not working for more than two years, resulting in the stagnation of effluents in the equalization tank. Therefore, the petitioners, being Monitoring Committee Members, jointly decided to transport the sludge from the equalization tank to the unauthorized additional SLF tank. Therefore, 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8while framing charges, the Trial Court has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict. Therefore, the Trial Court is not expected to meticulously weigh the evidence, but only to determine whether the material placed before it discloses a strong suspicion of the commission of an offence. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition seeking discharge. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing 07.07.2025 application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 202511. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.07.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLpp 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.LppTo1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Vellore Range,Vellore.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.11013 of 202507.07.202510/10
Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.11013 of 20251.S.Saravana Karthik 2.R.Ramesh3.B.Rajendiran4.M.Sreenivasa Reddy5.P.Pugazhendhi.....PetitionersVsThe State Rep. ByThe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Vellore Range,Vellore......RespondentPrayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet. For petitioners : Mr.T.P.PrabakaranFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, thereby dismissing the petition seeking discharge.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2015 at about 24.00 hours at Arkay Leather Company, Phase-I, SIPCOT, Raipet, about ten persons drowned to death into the leather industries effluent sludge, when the compound wall which was recently constructed for the Secure Land Fill (hereinafter referred to as “SLF”) tank collapsed at Ranipet SIDCO Finished Leather Effluent Treatment Company Limited. Therefore, the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.35 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 285 & 304(ii) of IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.91 of 2024. While pending adjudication for framing of charges, 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025the petitioner filed a petition seeking discharge from all the charges and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9 in the case. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, being Monitoring Committee Members, had actively participated in the construction of an unauthorized additional SLF tank by engaging the tenth accused, a civil contractor, and that they negligently handled hazardous waste by supporting the decision taken by the Directors to transport the semi-liquid untreated slurry to the additional SLF through the said contractor. However, the said allegations are not supported by any material evidence collected during the course of investigation. He further submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Monitoring Committee Members only to monitor the performance of the member units, as per the resolution dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Board of Directors of Common Effluent Treatment Plant. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
45. As per the said resolution, the duty of the Monitoring Committee Members is to initiate serious action against the member units that discharge their effluents into the CETP by bypassing the metering system. Such defaulting units shall be disconnected for the CETP conveying line for a period of three months and penalty shall be imposed. Further, if any member unit fails to comply with the circulars issued regarding the discharge of effluents during shutdown periods, the same shall be reported to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board authorities for taking further appropriate action. Therefore, the petitioners are in no way connected with the alleged acts attributed to them by the prosecution. However, the Trial Court, without properly considering the above facts and the limited role of the petitioners, dismissed the petition seeking discharge from all the charges levelled against them.6. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reveals that there are totally fourteen accused in this case, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A4 to A6, A8 & A9. The accused A1 to A3 are the Directors of Ranipet SIDCO Finished Leather Effluent 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025Treatment Company Limited. It is alleged that they decided to construct an additional SLF tank for storing dry sludge in the year 2013 and without adhering to the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board, without obtaining consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and without ensuring structural stability and quality assurance, they constructed the unauthorized SLF during the year 2014, entrusting the construction work to A10 to the tune of Rs.83,14,742/-. It is further alleged that due to power maintenance and operation, three floating aerators in the equalization tank became faulty in the year 2012. Instead of replacing them on time, they had purchased submersible mixers in the year 2012 and erected them only in January 2015, just before the incident.7. Due to the delayed and negligent attitude of A1 to A3, the actual process that was required to be carried out in the equalization tank i.e., homogenization of the effluent (mixing process), had not been performed for nearly two years prior to the occurrence. Further, A1 to A3, on their own, decided to clean the untreated effluent slurry that had accumulated in the equalization tank, in order to facilitate the erection of 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6the newly purchased submersible mixers. For this purpose, they independently engaged a contractor to carry out the cleaning work. In execution of the said work, the contractor hired three tipper lorries and one JCB and transported 709 load of untreated effluent slurry within eleven days and dumped into the newly constructed unauthorized SLF tank.8. The work performance of the contractor was closely monitored by the Monitoring Committee members viz., A4 to A9. They had extracted the work from the contractor and did not assume any responsibility for the operations, yet they are alleged to have negligently handled the hazardous waste. They also supported the decision taken by the A1 to A3. Further, as per established procedure, only solid waste, after undergoing various effluent treatment processes, in the form of dry sludge, is supposed to be stored in the SLF. However, in the present case, semi-liquid untreated effluent was stored in the SLF, contrary to these requirements, allegedly by A1 to A9. Due to the excessive hydraulic pressure of the untreated effluent slurry, classified as hazardous waste, the wall of the unauthorised SLF tank collapsed at 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025midnight on 30/31.01.2025. Consequently, the untreated effluent slurry flowed to the adjacent industry, resulting in the drowning and death of ten innocent works on the spot due to asphyxia.9. In support of the allegations, several list of witnesses deposed regarding the overt act of the petitioners herein. Further, on a perusal of the statement of L.Ws.1, 2, 4 & 5, recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the materials collected during the investigation, it is evident that there are sufficient materials available to frame charges against the petitioners. In fact, they also actively participated in the construction of unauthorized additional SLF tank by engaging the contractor, who is arrayed as A10 and also negligently handled hazardous waste. Therefore, the statement further revealed that the three floating type aerators provided in the equalization tank of RSFLET were not working for more than two years, resulting in the stagnation of effluents in the equalization tank. Therefore, the petitioners, being Monitoring Committee Members, jointly decided to transport the sludge from the equalization tank to the unauthorized additional SLF tank. Therefore, 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8while framing charges, the Trial Court has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict. Therefore, the Trial Court is not expected to meticulously weigh the evidence, but only to determine whether the material placed before it discloses a strong suspicion of the commission of an offence. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition seeking discharge. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.147 of 2024 in S.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing 07.07.2025 application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.759 of 202511. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.07.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLpp 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.LppTo1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Vellore Range,Vellore.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.759 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.11013 of 202507.07.202510/10