ORISSA STATE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION BOARD vs M/S.JAKRISHNA DAS MALL JUTE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.453 of 1994
(In the matter of an application under Section 378(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Orissa State Prevention and
Control of Pollution Board,
Bhubaneswar Appellant
…….

-Versus-
M/s. Jaikrishna Das Mall Jute
Products (P) Limited and another Respondents
…….


For the Appellant : Mr. D.N. Mohanty, Advocate



For the Respondents : None

CORAM
:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA



Date of Hearing: 19.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.05.1994 passed by
the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in 3(c) C.C. Case No.03 of 1990, the

appellant, Orissa State Prevention and Control of Pollution Board,
Bhubaneswar, has filed the present appeal.
2.
This Court, while granting leave to appeal against the
impugned judgment, vide order dated 13.02.1995 admitted the appeal.
3.
A complaint case under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was
initiated against the respondents on the allegation that respondent No.1-
company was illegally discharging its sewage and trade effluent to the
open nala without obtaining consent from the appellant. In the
complaint, it is alleged by the Board that accused No.1 is a medium scale
manufacturing industry commissioned on 24.12.1975 while accused
No.2 was the Director of the said company, as its occupier. Both the
accused brought into use an open nala for discharging the sewage
without obtaining consent which was detected when the scientific staff
of the appellant made inspection of the industry. Subsequently, although
the accused-company has applied for consent but by that time, the
provisions under Section 25 read with Section 26 of the Act had already

Page 2 of 6

been contravened as they have not paid the consent fees to continue to
discharge of the sewage into the new outlet.
4.
The complainant examined two witnesses to bring home its
case. P.W.1 was the authorized prosecuting officer and P.W.2 was the
environmental scientist. They have also brought on record series of
documents.
Defence examined two witnesses, who were the personal
manager and the section officer of the accused No.1-company.
5.
The trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence and
taking into consideration the fact scenario of the case in hand has arrived
at the following conclusion:
“9. The complainant has, however, claimed
consent fees of Rs.18,500/- but the amount being
much higher than the one intimated as payable
earlier, the accused persons have shown the
document, Ext.C, the appeal memo which they have
presented to the Secretary to the department of the

Page 3 of 6

Environment, Bhubaneswar to set aside the
amount. Ext.E, the postal acknowledgement has
also been produced. Copies thereof to the
Chairman and member Secretary of the Board are
stated to have been sent under Exts.D and F.
Ext.21 reveals the prayer of the accused industry to
the complainant to grant him time till the disposal
of the appeal, while Ext.7 also shows pendency of
the appeal for disposal. Pendency of appeal has
actually not been disputed whether the appeal
forum as provided under the Act has been
constituted or not. Thus, the prosecution having no
cause of action is not tenable under law as the
accused persons have paid the consent fees already
acknowledged by the complainant and the appeal
against the computation of further fees by the
complainant is still pending. ”
6.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings, which led to the
dismissal of the complaint, the appellant-Board has filed this appeal.
7.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 13.05.2026,
learned counsel for the appellant sought time to obtain instructions from

Page 4 of 6

his client not only regarding the present status of the accused
manufacturing company but also to obtain instruction as to whether the
Board is still interested to prosecute the appeal or not.
8.
When the matter was taken up on 19.05.2026, learned
counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submitted that respondent
No.1-company is still functioning and has now obtained permission
under the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act sanctioning to
discharge the sewage and trade effluent and the said sanction is valid
from April, 2026 to March, 2031 i.e. for a period of five years.
9.
It could be seen from the record that the accused-company
has already paid the fine amount for the alleged violation from the fact
that subsequently the company has been valid sanction up till March,
2031.
10.
I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and
also analyzed the evidence so as to ascertain as to whether the findings
recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the complaint are sustainable
on the face of the record or not.

Page 5 of 6

11. On careful consideration of the oral evidence led by the
complainant and the defence evidence besides the documents placed by
both the parties on record, no doubt is left in the mind of this Court that
the findings of the trial Court suffers no legal infirmity and is not
perverse, rather it is a possible view. It is no more res integra that the
view tilted in favour of the accused shall be accepted even if multiple
views are possible to be derived from the appreciation of evidence. In
that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be disallowed on merit
also apart from taking into account the development unfolded in the
present matter.
12. Accordingly, the CRA stands dismissed.



(S.S. Mishra)
Judge


The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
nd
Dated the 22 May, 2026/RKMishra

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-May-2026 19:03:40

Page 6 of 6