Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 379U / 1997Rajasthan Board … vs M/S Dhariwal Textiles And Another … on 13 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:24282]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 229/1997
Rajasthan Board For Prevention And Control of Pollution, 4,
Industrial Area, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Dhariwal Textiles, Mahaveer Udyog Nagar, Pali
2. Shri Sampatraj Dhariwal, Partner
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Piyush Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
13/05/2026
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“),
against the judgment dated 23.12.1993, passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Environment, Pali, Rajasthan,
in Criminal Complaint no. 57/1992, whereby the Respondent
accused were acquitted from offences under Sections 24, 25 and
26 read with Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter, “Act of 1974”).
2. Brief facts of the present case are that Respondent No. 1 is a
partnership firm and Respondent No. 2 is alleged to be a partner
therein. The Respondent firm is engaged in the business of
dyeing, printing, mercerising since 1975.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (2 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
2.1 On 20.08.1976, Respondent firm submitted an application for
obtaining consent for discharge of trade effluents. Another letter
dated 08.11.1976 (Exh. P-3), was submitted wherein it was stated
that a treatment plant would be installed within one year.
Thereafter, on 20.12.1976, the consent order (Exh. P-4) for
discharge of trade effluents under Section 25 and 26 of Act of
1974 was provisionally granted, subject to certain conditions
which are as follows:
“(i) The Consent is granted for a period upto JUNE, 1977.
(ii) Daily quantity of trade effluent shall not exceed _______
litres per day. Discharge shall be regularly measured by a
suitable flow measuring device.
(iii) The Industrial effluent shall be treated by suitable method so
as to conform to the tolerance limits as per I.S. 2490-Part-I,
1974 (as adopted by the Board).
The treatment method along with design should be intimated to
the Board with full details.
A copy of the Standards adopted by the Board is also enclosed
for your informations.
Enclosed
(i) ANNEXURE.
(ii) STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD.”
2.2 The provisional consent was further extended till
31.12.1978. On 17.03.1979, a notice for inspection (Exh.P-6) was
issued in the name of Respondent No. 2 under Rule 30(2), Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, whereby Mr. D.C.
Sharma – Junior Chemist (PW-2) and Mr. A.K. Maheshwari were
appointed as the inspection officers. They were directed to
conduct inspection of the factory and disposal system of the firm.
Consequently, the inspection was carried out and a ‘notice of
intimation to have sample analysed’ (Exh.P-8) was served upon
the Respondent No.1, then and there, which mentions that sample
was collected from “final outlet” on 19.03.1979. The sample was
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (3 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
collected, sealed, marked in the presence of inspection officer, Mr.
D. C. Sharma. The signatures of Mr. Sampatraj Dhariwal
(Respondent No.2) were also obtained on the said notice.
2.3 On 19.03.1979, an inspection was conducted by the
inspection officers and an inspection report (Exh. P-7) was
prepared by Mr. D. C. Sharma (PW-2). It mentions that
Respondent No. 2 was a partner in the firm. It was found that no
treatment plant had been installed and untreated trade effluent
was being discharged via two outlets, one for dyeing and another
for mercerising and printing. Moreover, 15,000 litres of trade
effluent was being discharged by the firm per day which ultimately
joins Bandi river. The samples collected from the firm, were sent
for analysis to the State Board Analyst. On 07.04.1979, a report
was issued by the Board Analyst stating that the sample was
received by him on 20.03.1979 and the condition of the seal,
fastening and container on receipt was “intact”.
2.4 According to testimony of PW-1, K.L. Goel (Member
Secretary), on 26.05.1979, permission to initiate prosecution
against the Respondent firm was granted. On 07.08.1979, a
complaint was presented before the Court. The statements of Mr.
K.L. Goel, Member Secretary and Mr. D.C. Sharma, Junior Chemist
were recorded and on 08.01.1988, the charges under Sections 24,
25 and 26 read with 43 and 44 of Act of 1974 were framed against
the accused.
2.5 The prosecution evidences were closed on 08.08.1993. On
20.12.1993, the statements of Respondent accused were recorded
under Section 313, CrPC wherein Respondent No.2 gave the
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (4 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
statement that he had never been officer in-charge of the
Respondent firm nor had he ever been involved in the
management thereof. Respondent accused did not produce any
evidences.
2.6 The issues before the learned Trial Court were :
(i) Whether Respondent firm was liable under Section 24 r/w
Section 43 of Act of 1974 on account of discharging untreated
trade effluents in Bandi river and thereby, polluting it.
(ii) Whether Respondent firm was liable under Section 25 r/w
Section 44 of Act of 1974 on account of establishing any new
outlet or initiating any new discharge.
(iii) Whether Respondent firm was liable under Section 26 r/w
Section 44 of Act of 1974 on account of discharging the trade
effluent without obtaining consent order.
2.7 After examination of witnesses and evidences adduced by
the parties, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated
23.12.1993 acquitted the Respondents on benefit of doubt.
2.8 Hence, the present criminal appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned
Magistrate has gravely erred in holding that the Respondent
accused were prejudiced on account of not being afforded an
opportunity to further cross-examine PW-1 due to his death during
trial. According to the Appellant, the said finding is wholly contrary
to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which expressly
renders previous testimony admissible where the witness cannot
be produced on account of death.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (5 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate
has misdirected himself in doubting compliance of Section 21 of
the Water Act while collecting the sample of trade effluent.
Attention of this Court is invited to the testimony of PW-2, which
unequivocally establishes that all procedural formalities, including
issuance of notices prior to inspection and sampling, obtaining
signatures of the occupiers, collection and sealing of samples,
preparation of inspection report and dispatch of the samples to the
Board Laboratory, were duly carried out by him in accordance with
law.
3.2 Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Section 21(3)
(a) of Act of 1974 provides that notice is required to be served
forthwith, on the person in-charge or the occupier of the premises.
The notice is required to be served only on the occupier of the
premises and not upon every accused person. The notice was duly
served on Respondent no. 1. Therefore, service of notice on
Respondent no. 1 was sufficient compliance of Section 21 of Act of
1974.
3.3 Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that, with
regard to division of samples obtained during inspection, Section
21(5) of the Act of 1974 provides that the sample may be divided
into two parts at the request of the occupier. In the absence of
such request, the sample is required to be placed in a sealed
container marked and signed by both the inspecting authority and
the occupier. In the present case, the sample was collected from
the final outlet and, since Respondent No. 6 did not request
division of the sample, PW-2 Mr. D.C. Sharma placed the sample
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (6 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
in a sealed container, duly marked the same and obtained the
signatures of Respondent No. 6 thereon.
3.4 Learned counsel further submits that the Board had duly
adopted IS-2490 Part-I standards and that the same were
specifically communicated to the accused vide Exhibit P-4, thereby
rendering such standards and conditions binding under Sections
25 and 26 of the Act.
3.5 Learned counsel submits that the prosecution was only
required to prove discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting
matter into a stream, sewer or land without consent of the State
Board. The drain into which the trade effluent was discharged
clearly fell within the definition of “stream” under Section 2(j) of
the Act. Hence, it was wholly unnecessary for the prosecution to
prove that the effluent had ultimately reached River Bandi,
especially when the topography of the area itself demonstrated
such flow.
3.6 Learned counsel further submits that the finding regarding
non-liability of Respondent No.2 is perverse and contrary to the
evidence on record. The material on record clearly demonstrates
that Respondent No.2 had been acting as partner and person in-
charge of the affairs of Respondent No.1 firm from the very
inception, including submission of consent applications,
correspondence with the Board and participation during inspection
dated 19.03.1979.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (7 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
5. The present case being an appeal against acquittal, this
Court is required to examine whether the findings of the learned
Trial Court suffer from any error of fact or law, illegality, infirmity,
or perversity. This Court finds that there were several procedural
lapses in the conduct of the inspection and collection of samples.
5.1 On perusal of the inspection report (Exh. P-6), it is observed
that it is a typed report and does not contain the date when it was
prepared. PW-2 in his cross examination stated that he had
prepared notes of inspection on a rough paper and then he
prepared this typed report, later in time. The rough paper was not
produced as evidence before the learned Trial Court. This Court is
of the opinion that the inspection officer must have prepared the
report on site and obtained signatures of the agent or occupier
thereof present at the time of inspection. Therefore, this raises
doubts regarding the authenticity and reliability of the inspection
report prepared by PW-2.
5.2 According to section 23(2), the entry and inspection must be
conducted in consonance with the provisions of CrPC for search,
inspection and seizure. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the
inspection officer to associate at least two independent witnesses
during the inspection proceedings.
5.3 The association of independent witnesses was necessary,
particularly because certain objections raised by the learned
counsel for the Respondent-accused during trial could not be
effectively rebutted by the Appellant-complainant. Firstly, the
burden of proving that no request for division of sample was made
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (8 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
by Respondent No. 2, lay upon the Appellant. However, this fact
could not be proved to the satisfaction of the Court.
5.4 Exh.P-16 further mentions that the sample was sealed,
marked and signed in the presence of inspection officer, D. C.
Sharma (PW-2) and bears signatures of Respondent No.2.
However, on perusal of the Exhibits it appears that in the
application for consent the signatures of Mr. Sampat are in
English. However, the signatures purportedly obtained from the
alleged partner on the inspection and sampling notices appear in
Hindi.
5.5 In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he had
collected the sample in only one container and had not obtained
the signatures of any person on the inspection report. He further
stated that he had conducted the inspection alone and, therefore,
did not obtain the signatures of Mr. A.K. Maheshwari. PW-2
admitted that he had not personally verified the identity of Mr.
Sampat. He further deposed that, after collecting the sample, he
affixed the seal prescribed by the State Board. However, neither
the specimen impression of the seal was produced before the
learned Trial Court nor was the same brought on record by the
Appellant.
5.6 The learned Trial Court further noted that although PW-1 was
cross-examined before framing of charge, after framing of charge
the Respondent-accused did not get an opportunity to further
cross-examine him due to his death. Consequently, the
Respondent-accused was deprived of the valuable right of further
cross-examination.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (9 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
5.7 In his statement under Section 313, CrPC, it was submitted
by the Respondent No. 2 that he had never been officer in-charge
of the Respondent firm nor had he ever been involved in the
management thereof. It was deposed by PW-2 in his cross
examination that, at the time of inspection, no material was
sought by PW-2 to ensure as to who were the partners. The notice
for inspection (Exh. P-6) also does not mention the name of the
partners in the firm. Certain correspondences have been placed on
record to show that Respondent No. 2 was a partner, however, the
partnership deed or document of registration of the firm were not
produced as evidence before the learned Trial Court nor was it
brought on record before this Court. Since, it is not fully
established that Respondent No. 2 was partner in the Respondent
firm, prosecution could not have been initiated against him.
5.8 Furthermore, Exh.P-16 has been produced to show that
sample was collected on 19.03.1979, however, the sample was
received by the State Board Analyst on 20.03.1979 i.e. 1 day after
the sample was collected. With regard to the process of collection
of sample and transmission thereof, there is no independent
evidence to establish that the sample was not tampered with,
during transit to the laboratory. It was pertinent to establish
proper custody of sample till it reached the Board Analyst.
5.9 Therefore, the lapses in ensuring the integrity of the sample,
bring the report of Board Analyst under the umbrella of doubt as
there is no independent evidence to show that the sample was
received by the Board Analyst in original condition. This further
casts a shadow on the prosecution’s case.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (10 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
5.10 The Appellant failed to prove that the IS-2490 norms which
were alleged to have been violated were legally enforceable. In
the present case, out of the two witnesses examined by the
complainant, none had stated when and what standards had been
prescribed by the Board for discharge of effluents or whether such
standards were prescribed in accordance with law. Moreover, no
copy of the standards had been placed on record. Therefore, the
learned trial Court rightly observed that merely on the basis of the
chemical analyst’s report (Exh. P-9) it could not be concluded
whether Respondent firm was discharging trade effluents contrary
to the standards or in conformity therewith.
5.11 Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged
effluent ultimately reached the Bandi River or any “stream” within
the meaning of the Act of 1974. No evidence, either through
inspection notes, maps, or witness testimony, was produced to
show that the discharge from the unit ultimately entered a natural
water body. This is an essential ingredient of the offences charged
and cannot be presumed.
5.12 Consequently, the offence under Section 24 read with
Section 43 of the Act of 1974 is not made out, as the prosecution
case is founded entirely upon an inspection and sampling process
whose legality and reliability remain doubtful owing to the
procedural deficiencies discussed hereinabove.
5.13 For proving the charge under Section 25 of the Act of 1974,
the prosecution ought to have established what outlet points had
been altered by the accused industry after constitution of the
Board and what outlet points existed previously. In the absence of
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (11 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
clear evidence on this aspect, the matter remains ambiguous. In
the present case also, the prosecution witnesses could not disclose
what new outlet points had been opened or altered by the accused
industry after constitution of the Board. In the absence of clear
and cogent evidence on this aspect, the ingredients of the offence
under Section 25 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974 remain
unproved.
6. At this juncture, it would appropriate to refer to the
landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Mallappa and
Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka; (2024) 3 SCC 544, wherein it
was observed that:
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All
the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law,
are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles
which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal
could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive –
inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in
a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that
two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal
in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court
for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and legal
position and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24282] (12 of 12) [CRLA-229/1997]
proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds no
error of law or fact, illegality, or perversity in the impugned
judgment. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The judgment dated 23.12.1993, passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Environment, Pali. in Criminal
Complaint no. 57/1992 is affirmed.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
1-skm/-
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:33:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:42:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
