Meeka Woollen Mills & Ors. v. Mr.Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana

PW2. After pre-charge evidence, trial court opined that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Act. After charge, opportunity was given to further cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant. After further cross-examination of the witnesses, statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence version of Mohan Lal Mittal, petitioner No.2, was that he along with his wife Krishna Mittal was the partner of the unit. Sudhir Kumar was not the partner. Defence version of Sudhir Kumar, petitioner No.2, was that he had no concern with the unit. In fact, Mohan Lal Mittal and his wife Krishna Mittal are the partners of the unit and are responsible for conducting day to day affairs of the unit. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the petitioners and from the perusal of evidence on the file, petitioners No.2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced by the Special Environment Court, Hisar, as stated aforesaid and the judgment of Special Environment Court was upheld by the impugned judgment. I have heard learned defence counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Board and have gone through the evidence on the file. Crl.Revision No. 1645 of 2002 4 Learned defence counsel for the petitioners argued that Sudhir Kumar had no concern with the unit. In fact, unit was owned by Mohan Lal Mittal and his wife Krishna Mittal. Sample was not collected in the presence of Mohan Lal Mittal or his wife. As per Section 21 of the Act, sample was to be taken in the presence of partners only or their agent. When sample was not taken in the presence of partners of the unit or their agent, then complaint was liable to be dismissed. In case the Court is of the opinion that sample was taken in the presence of the partners of the unit or their agent, then requested to take lenient view because petitioners have already undergone one month and nine days. Secondly, offence was compounded and at present, the unit is lying closed. Learned counsel for the Board argued that Sudhir Kumar was the agent of the partners of the unit. He was very much present at the time of inspection. Sample was taken by Sh. B.L.Katyal. Suggestion was given to the witness that sample was collected at the instance of Harbans Lal Sikka, who was inimical towards the petitioners, but no evidence on the file that petitioners were inimical towards Harbans Lal Sikka. Certificate (Ex.C3) was obtained from Sudhir Kumar. Sudhir Kumar when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then simply stated that he was not the partner of the unit but did not state a word that Ex.C2 or Ex.C3 was not signed by him. Undisputedly, the unit was engaged in the business of dyeing and bleaching, washing, manufacturing of clothes etc. This fact is also an admitted one that in the process of dyeing and bleaching, various dyeing and other chemicals were used. According to the Board, untreated trade effluent was being discharged in the open drain causing direct and indirect pollution of water. Sample was collected by Sh. B.L.Katyal. Notice was Crl.Revision No. 1645 of 2002 5 signed by Sudhir Kumar but allegation of the petitioners is that Sudhir Kumar was not the partner of the unit. Mohan Lal Mittal when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that he along with his wife was the partner of the unit. Sudhir Kumar had no concern with the unit but in support of this allegation, no documentary evidence was produced on the file. Sh. B.L.Katyal appeared as PW2 on behalf of the respondent. Then suggestion was given to him that sample was collected at the instance of Harbans Lal Sikka, who was inimical towards the petitioners. But the only question is whether Sudhir Kumar had any concern with the unit owned by Mohan Lal Mittal and his wife. Under Section 47 of the Act, any person who at the time of offence was the Incharge or was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Complainant when appeared as witness then stated that Mohan Lal Mittal and Sudhir Kumar are the partners of the unit and are Incharge and responsible for conducting day to day business of the unit. Ex.C1 is the notice of intention to have sample analysed. Ex. C2 is the spot inspection report and Ex.C3 is the presence certificate. All these documents were signed and executed by Sudhir Kumar in the capacity of partner of the unit. Mohan Lal Mittal when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that he along with his wife Krishna Mittal are the partners of the unit. Sudhir Kumar has no concern with the unit. Petitioners produced photocopy of partnership deed dated 30.1.1987 and copy of Form A, i.e., certificate of registration but no official was summoned to exhibit these documents. In Crl.Revision No. 1645 of 2002 6 case Mohan Lal Mittal and his wife were the partners of the unit, then record could easily be summoned from the concerned office to state that partners of the unit are Mohan Lal Mittal and his wife. According to registration certificate dated 2.4.1987, Mohan Lal Mittal and Krishna Mittal are the partners but Krishna Mittal was not impleaded as one of the accused before the trial Court. No suggestion was given to the witnesses that Krishna Mittal as a partner ever conducted the business of the unit. Sudhir Kumar represented himself as the partner of the unit when sample was collected by Sh. B.L.Katyal. Before the First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Sudhir Kumar was an employee in the unit and not the partner of the unit and was not responsible for conducting day to day business of the unit. His signatures were obtained on blank papers because Sh. B.L.Katyal was having cordial relations with Harbans Lal Sikka, who was inimical towards the petitioners. Sh. B.L.Katyal appeared as PW2, then suggestion was given to him that sample was collected at the instance of Harbans Lal Sikka, who was inimical towards the petitioners. But no evidence on the file that Harbans Lal Sikka was inimical towards the petitioners. Nothing on the file that B.L.Katyal was having cordial relations with Harbans Lal Sikka. Complaint was not filed by B.L.Katyal but was filed by Assistant Environment Engineer. At the time of inspection, Sudhir Kumar received notice of intention to have the sample analysed and signed the inspection report (Ex.C2) and also issued presence certificate (Ex.C3). Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 were signed by Sudhir Kumar and also affixed his seal as partner of the unit. If signatures of Sudhir Kumar were obtained on blank papers, then complaints should have been sent to different authorities. There was no Crl.Revision No. 1645 of 2002 7 idea to remain silent. While signing Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, Sudhir Kumar represented himself as partner in the unit but later on, to save the unit, story was concocted by Mohan Lal Mittal and Sudhir Kumar that there were only two partners, namely, Mohan Lal Mittal and Krishna Mittal. Sudhir Kumar has no concern with the unit. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was considered by the first Appellate Court as well as trial Court. Revisional Court is not to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence on the file. In case evidence on the file was misread causing prejudice to the petitioners, only then Revisional Court is to interfere. Sample was collected on 22.4.1992 by Sh.B.L.Katyal, Scientist of the Board. Petitioners have already undergone one month and nine days. At present, M/s Meeka Woollen Mills is lying closed. Petitioners are to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to serve remaining portion of the sentence. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. In view of all discussed above, petitioners Mohan Lal Mittal and Sudhir Kumar are directed to undergo imprisonment as already undergone (one month and nine days). Fine maintained. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.

7.12.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE