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 p. 2 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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 p. 5 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. p. 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. Dated the 22nd May, 2026/RKMishra MOHAPATRA