Sections 25, 26 and 44 – Water Pollution Act 1974 – Conviction and Sentence -Vicarious Liability
The trial Court convicted the accused for offences under section 44 read with sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and sentenced each of them for one and half year and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
The applicants – accused nos.3 and 4 were the Director and Manager, respectively, of the Company at Taloja, Panvel, dealing with raw material like used oil, caustic soda, sulphuric acid, etc. for production of spray oil, white oil, solvent oil and other petroleum products.
On 7.8.1979, the Pollution Board granted consent to the Company for discharge of effluent from its factory. This was renewed till the date of filing of the complaint.
On 7.1.1998, the notice for collection of affluent discharge was served and without giving any time, on the same day the samples were collected. On 19.2.1988, the analysis report was received and it was considered in the Board Meeting of 14.6.1988.
On 22.7.1988, the consent was renewed.
On 5.11.1998, the complaint was filed against the Company and the applicants under Sections 43 & 44 read with sections 24 to 26 of the Water Pollution Act.
HELD that the procedure of Section 21(3)(e) was not complied with, no explanation for the same was not provided, on 19.2.1988 the report of Government analyst was furnished, it was considered in the Board Meeting of 14.6.1988 and Resolution No.5 for sanction of prosecution for 18 companies including the Company of application was passed. On 4.8.1988 a common sanction order was passed for prosecution of 19 companies.
Every person connected with business of the firm or holding an office cannot be made liable for the offence. If the person is charged with criminal culpability as in the present case, then his specific role has to be stated. Liability under criminal law would arise only if necessary averments are made in the complaint itself. Liability arises on account of the conduct, act or omission on the part of the person and not merely on account of the offence that he is holding.
The Board Resolution against 19 companies was vague in respect of the Company and the role of the applicants.
A person who is charged with the offence must be “directly” in charge of the firm and should be directly responsible for the conduct of its business.
Judgment dated 2.4.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.390 of 2002 of Shree P.A. Parekh and another Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and another
