Click the Play button to listen to article

The Telangana High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a meat processing company over allegations of improper disposal of animal waste through burial pits and contamination of nearby water sources and ground water. 

The court held that the complaint and the supporting material disclose a prima facie case, which requires trial for the offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The single judge bench of Justice N. Tukaramji, while dismissing the plea, observed:

“The dispute thus concerns the nature and method of waste disposal, the alleged entry of polluting matter into water sources or onto land, the significance of the laboratory findings and the petitioner's compliance with the applicable regulatory directions. These matters require evaluation of the evidence and cannot appropriately be determined by conducting a mini-trial in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C..."

Considering the grounds advanced by the petitioner and the material described in the pleadings, the Court found that the allegations concerning the alleged improper disposal of animal waste and contamination of water sources, read with the laboratory findings and other material relied upon by the Board, "disclose a prima facie basis for the prosecution to proceed".

The court said that the petitioner could not establish that its defence conclusively rules out the prosecution case, that the proceedings are manifestly attended by mala fides, or that continuation of the prosecution would otherwise amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

"The grounds urged by the petitioner, therefore, do not warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings. The truth or otherwise of the allegations, the evidentiary value of the laboratory reports, the alleged connection between the petitioner's activities and the contamination complained of, the methods of waste disposal adopted by the petitioner and its compliance with the Board's directions shall be determined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced in accordance with law. No opinion expressed herein shall be treated as a finding on the guilt or innocence of the petitioner or any other accused...

Having regard to the pendency of the proceedings since 2017, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and endeavour to dispose of the proceedings on priority, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments and subject to the requirements of a fair trial…”, the court noted further.

The petitioner-company had a meat processing unit at Rudraram Village in Medak District, and the Telangana State Pollution Control Board lodged a complaint against the Company and its functionaries for improperly disposing of animal waste through burial pits instead of adopting prescribed methods. The complaint by the Board's environmental engineer alleged that the company violated conditions of its own Consent Order dated 03.09.2015, resulting in environmental pollution and contamination of nearby ponds, wells and groundwater

Following a representation made by the District Legal Services Authority in December 2016, and a news report in Eenadu, about the operations of the unit, the Board reportedly sprang into action.

The Board, thereafter, also relied on laboratory reports concerning water samples from borewells and a drainage channel nearby, which allegedly indicated raised levels of Total Dissolved Solids and Chemical Oxygen Demand levels. In the complaint, the Board also alleged that dead animals were buried in pits, and water had been contaminated with animal blood.

Senior Counsel B.S. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner-company, primarily contended that it has requisite statutory permissions, and maintained an Effluent Treatment Plant(ETP). According to the company, the treated wastewater from the operations was utilised for aquaculture and land irrigation within the company premises.

According to the plea, even the dead animals were scientifically processed for production of poultry-feed additives. Moreover, vermiculture and composting methods were adopted for biodegradable waste as per the petitioner, and denied violating any directions of the Board.

The petitioner, before the High Court, further submitted that the Magistrate's decision to initiate prosecution, while simultaneously granting time to comply with the Board's directions was arbitrary and amounted to a colourable exercise of power. The company also said that the Board had encashed its bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Board opposed the petition, submitting that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 24 and 43 of the Water Act. It was contended that allegations concerning improper burial and contamination of water sources were supported by inspection reports, laboratory analysis, and complaints from villagers.

In addition, the Board also relied on correspondence from the petitioner allegedly referring to removal of approximately 40 tonnes of buried waste and pumping of about 30 kilolitres of stagnant water into the ETP.

The court, after hearing both sides, noted as below:

“…Taken together, these allegations and the supporting material relied upon by the prosecution furnish a prima facie basis for examining whether the petitioner's activities resulted in the entry of polluting matter in circumstances attracting Section 24 of the Water Act… The allegations, at this stage, cannot be rejected merely because the petitioner disputes the alleged contamination or asserts that it adopted appropriate waste-disposal methods.”, the Court observed.

On the issuance of regulatory directions by the Board on 24.12.2016 and 02.03.2017, including grant of time for compliance, the Court observed that this did not automatically extinguish criminal liability for an alleged contravention committed earlier.

“…It is, however, necessary to clarify that the laboratory findings concerning elevated TDS or COD levels do not, by themselves, conclusively establish that the petitioner committed a contravention of Section 24 of the Water Act. The evidentiary significance of those findings, their relationship to the alleged industrial activity, the applicable standards and the question whether the statutory ingredients of the offence are established must be determined in accordance with law. The present conclusion is confined to the existence of a prima facie basis for continuation of the proceedings…”, the court added further.

The Court further observed that the liability of the company's directors and managers must be examined with reference to Section 47 of the Water Act and the specific allegations made against each of them.

With a direction for expeditious disposal of the case, the plea was disposed of.


Tags: