IN THE EUGH COSRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY
BEFORE}
THE HQIWBLE MR. .j:z4Sr1Cfi;A.:sI'."ANAr;»1§A; 1.
CRIMINAL PETITiOl\Iv:v:41LN4Vf):_.5§38"O'1"35 2i)Oi3§
BETWEEN: 'V A"
1 M/S EXECUTIVE APPAREL'pRk3c'ESsR.}53~5?'..
F'ROF':"i.\J3 APPAREL PROCESSORS,
S:§i'I'E_ NO. ii}, ..I_2'T.'H 'i~£M',~_'I'UME(UR ROAD, _
OPP TO PEEi"3.Y'A T»E',LF:.-?§f'I5i{)NE EXCHANGE,
PEENYAA DASAEEAHAVLLIV; ' B'LORE--57.
3 _ -J T DALLAL' - -
, MANAGER; /8 EXECUTIVE APPAREL
Péé-QCESSORS;"'Si"FE N010, 12TH KM,
a 3 TUM{3'.1.IR_ ROAD, 09? TO PEENYA 'TELEPHONE
T _)3:;:«:4r;:'1~:,ANjc;3::, PEENYA DASARAHALLI,
I B'--:",,.C>RI:;--V57._--v"
PETITIONERS
3 {By 3:: V NAGESH, ADVOCATE 3
K 'V ' A xA;~a:;:s. 4_:
' M/S KARNATAKA STATE
POLLUTIOR" CGNTROL BOARD
NOS 63,8 AND 9TH FLOOR,
PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING,
M G ROAD, B'L.CiRE-1,
R/'BY ITS DY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
RESPONDENT
(By Srti BRNAIK FGR Sri. U NAGARAJ, ADVOCATES )
.’ V. _ V’ é:2.V’1’heyé_ ha.vev”‘éié1§V1)roached this court to quash the
Ae’–pI”oCeed:i:2gs, VA’.e’-inter alia, contending, the learned
Cf’.’§:C. mfore issuing summons to the accused. It
contended that complainant had 110 loans standi
present the complaint and procedure adopted for
GIRL? men U,/S. 432 CR.P.C. PRAYENG TO REVERSE
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER oar. 22.1.93 passer.» E3Y.._’I’I-.IE
C.M.M., emcee IN cone. 83/98, n1sEcT1m–o’–V__m”s
RE(3iSTRA’I’iON op’ A ease AGAINST THE PE*s;2s.V.__ANo’w.s
ORDERING PROCESS AGAINST THEM Res A ‘THEIR—.e
APPEARANCE BEFORE THE’. COURT PRESUMABLY ‘fiNI3[QUASH* 1.
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. ~
This petition, coming hes1ing,.fixis”:§iéy, ‘ t.he ‘V
Court, made the following: — ” «.
vun-.——-
The Nos. 1 to 3
in C. for offences
26 I’/W. Sections 44
and file of Chief Metropolitan
Magif.s1;rate.’ 4 ”
IS/ie1g«’i5tI.’.’__<itG not foilowed the provisions of Section
collecting samples of water is eor1t.1'a:'y to Section '21 of
@gVeWa,e
the Water Act. N~
I.»
3. I have heard Sri.C.V.Nagesh,
appearing for petitioner and .,
counsel appearing for respondelit,
4. It is seen from reccifds, ori ‘pfesenfgitiQn..V.(}Vf..3fi1e *
complaizxt the lear11ec1:_ MagisVt_§§§te_’pe;fssed
order which reads j _
‘Complaifi ‘ –pfese§nte;£1’:pf§ ‘ :’Register as CC
and issue
5,. by a pubiic
_, fieerned Magistrate could
dispense V'”v=.:r_ii;h, swom “st§tement. Hewever, the learned
«_ Ma.gi.st1fg}1teVv sheu]d_____not have issued summons to
taking cegnizaslce of offences and
z-3p1ji}?’ing& iiiie fiiind to averlnents of complaint.
*f;. ‘u’g’_1′}V1is court in a decision reported in 1m 2001
A 51’ {in the ease efPRAShAN’1’H ILTHAKUR as.
‘ 1§;Ae3uNATHxoD1:xAL) has heid,
“5. On a perusal of the certified copy of
the czrder-sheet of the case maintained by the
learned Magistnzte, it is found that the
teamed Magistrate has not taken cognizance
I find that the impugned order
V’ ” * tdthe learned Magistrate for fresh disposal in
the respondent was remanded to the
custody under the {awful orders
cnfme No.66/1995 by the same Court, A’ ~
out whether there are any grgunds _ V
against the pedtrbner and . e
for the offences under ‘A’34’2x
sec azzeged in the
learned Magistrate
question to
to pmsee;4re’* ether Police
0fi?cers,r%w§z:a;;;;z my opportunity to alt
ea; in the matter.
__ to have been left
:4: by the com mez-
_givirrQ'< ail the accused to submit
'—win______the matter at a Later stage.
«regard to the facts and circumstances
pdssediay the learned Magze were is liabie to
begsevt aside and the matter is to be remanded
aeaordazme with law, by foltowing the correct
procedure. "
7. In a decision reperted in 2001 {3} Kar.L.J. 518
(in the case ef PARAVA TAGOUDA as.
REVANASHIIIDAYYA this caurt has held, fr’:
7 }”
‘r’\,-=’ .
grotmds to proceed against the accused. Thereforcfihe
impugned order caimot be sustained.
9. In the result, petition is acoe;>’i;fé:d..:Ar:V,: V’ M
impugned order is set aside. ‘I’11é”1’11at_t:é:r is
to the learned Magistrate for re~c$on;é;i_d’erat}iQr1 ‘from
stage of presentation of ccrnfiiairit ta of the
obsenzafions made hersin law.
sd/-2.
cm/~