Strict compliance with mandatory sampling procedures is essential; directors' vicarious liability requires specific, substantiated allegations.

The Appellant (Gujarat Pollution Control Board) filed a criminal complaint in 1987 against Respondent No. 1 (Company) and Respondents Nos. 2–4 (Directors) for violating Sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Trial Court convicted the Respondents on 31.03.2003, sentencing them to one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 each

On appeal, the Fast Track Court (Appellate Court) set aside this conviction on 30.03.2007

The Appellant challenged this acquittal, alleging that the Respondents discharged untreated effluents and created an illegal outlet

Evidence showed that samples were collected on 01.08.1986; however, the Board Analyst admitted to receiving three mismatched glass containers (2.5 litres, 1 litre, and 300 ml) rather than the standard prescribed volumes

The court primarily applied Section 21 of the Water Act, which mandates that samples must be divided into two parts in the presence of the occupier and sealed in marked containers to be admissible in evidence

It further relied on Rule 27 of the Gujarat Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1976, which prescribes that at least 2.5 litres of material must be sent in a container with a capacity between 3 and 5 litres

Regarding liability, the court applied Section 47 of the Water Act concerning offences by companies and followed the precedent in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Haryana, which establishes that a director is not automatically vicariously liable unless the complaint contains specific allegations connecting their personal conduct to the company's liability

The court also cited Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. Nicosulf Industries & Exports (P) Ltd. to emphasize the sanctity of sample collection procedures

The court found that the Appellant failed to adhere to the "sacrosanct" procedures for sample collection under Section 21

Specifically, the samples were not divided into two parts as required by Section 21(3)(b), depriving the Respondents of the right to have a second container analyzed by a separate laboratory

Furthermore, the Analyst’s testimony revealed a breach of Rule 27, as the containers used did not meet the 3-to-5-litre capacity requirement, and the total volumes were inconsistent

The court reasoned that since these procedures are intended to ensure fairness in penal proceedings, any material deviation renders the analysis report doubtful and inadmissible

On the issue of vicarious liability, the court observed that the complaint merely identified Respondents Nos. 2–4 as Directors without attributing any specific act, criminal intent, or supervisory failure to them

Following the principle that there is no presumption of knowledge for every officer, the court determined that criminal liability could not be fastened upon the Directors without substantiated allegations of personal involvement

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the offence because the sample collection violated mandatory statutory safeguards under Section 21 of the Water Act and Rule 27 of the Water Rules, rendering the evidentiary value of the analysis report void

Additionally, it held that the Directors could not be held vicariously liable under Section 47 because the complaint lacked specific averments regarding their individual roles in the commission of the offence

The record and proceedings were ordered to be remitted to the Trial Court