What emerges from these decisions of this Court
is:
a. If the violation of the provisions of the Water Act
was at the hands of a Department, subject to the
satisfaction of the requirements under Section 48
of the Water Act, “the Head of the Department” would
be deemed to be guilty. This would of course be
subject to the defences which are available to him
to establish whether the offence in question was
committed without his knowledge or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
b. By virtue of the decision of this Court in V.C.
Chinnappa Goudar (Supra), because of deeming fiction
under Section 48 of the Water Act, the protection
under Section 197 of the Code would not be available
and the matter ought to be considered de hors such
protection.
c. If the concerned public servant happens to be a
Chief Officer or Commissioner of a Municipal Council
or Town Panchayat, he cannot strictly be called “the
Head of the Department of the Government”.
Therefore, in terms of decision of this Court in B.
Heera Naik (Supra), the matter would not come under
Section 48 of the Water Act. But the matter would
come directly under Section 47 of the Water Act.
According to said decision, even in such cases, the
deeming fiction available under Section 47 of the
Water Act would dis-entitle the public servant from
the protection under Section 197 of the Code.{Para 17}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.599 OF 2021
NOORULLA KHAN Vs KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
Author: UDAY UMESH LALIT, J
Dated: JULY 13,2021.
Print Page
