De-sealing of polluting unit not a ground to reverse conviction under Water Act, Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that de-sealing of a polluting unit cannot be a ground to upset a conviction under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [Water Act]..The conduct on the date of the inspection has to be taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating upon the infringements, the Court has held..The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunil Gaur in a petition challenging a trial court order which had convicted the petitioner, Hem Karan Bhiduri under the Water Act. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 24 read with Section 43, Section 25 read with Section 44, and Section 33A read with Section 41 of Act. He had been awarded a sentence of one year and six months along with fine..The order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the Appellate Court as well, leading to the appeal in the High Court..The petitioner was apprehended on a complaint filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee. The complaint was made after an inspection of the petitioner’s unit was carried out by a Vigilance Squad in February 2000. It was alleged that the petitioner’s unit, M/s Anupam Prints, was found to be washing screens used for textile printing and then releasing the trade effluent directly/indirectly into stream/sewer or on land without installing an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP)..It was also stated that the petitioner was doing these acts without the consent of the Pollution Control Board..Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the conviction could not be sustained as no sample of water was lifted and analyzed from the unit. It was explained that this step was necessary, as the unit was not a water discharging unit..It was further pointed out that after two months of the petitioner’s conviction, the Committee had allowed the petitioner to function from the premises in question. The petitioner also brought on record a May 2000 report to state that his unit was not a water-polluting unit..The Committee, on the other hand, argued that the non-lifting of water samples was not fatal to the prosecution because the use of the water for screen printing and its discharge into sewage was established from the evidence..All the three complainant witnesses had categorically deposed that the unit was found to be engaged in the activity of textile printing without mandatory consent under the Water Act and without installing an ETP..After hearing the parties, the Court stated that the non-lifting of samples of water for analysis was not fatal to the case, as it was evident from the Inspection Report that no effluent treatment plant was installed..The Court also rejected the May 2000 report by stating that it “is of no assistance to the case of petitioner as the inspection in question was done on 21st February, 2000”..Further dealing with the petitioner’s contention with respect to the unit being allowed to function again, the Court said,.“De-sealing of petitioner’s premises later on cannot be a ground to upset the conviction and the sentence awarded to petitioner as the conduct of petition has to be seen on the date of the inspection and the subsequent conduct cannot be taken into consideration.”.Finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court order, the High Court dismissed the petition..The petitioner was represented by advocate Daleep Dhyani..The Committee was represented by advocate Biraja Mahapatro..[Read Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.