The man was arrested on the basis of a complaint filed with the Delhi Pollution Control Committee
A sweet shop owner has been sentenced to three years of imprisonment for polluting the environment. The man was arrested on the basis of a complaint filed with the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), which stated that untreated waste was being discharged directly into public sewers.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ajay Garg also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh after the court found that the accused were operating their unit without obtaining requisite consent as required under the Water Act, 1974.
"The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the unit of the accused was operating without requisite consent from DPCC and untreated effluent was being discharged directly in the public sewer/drain. Accordingly, accused Vikas Bansal is held guilty and convicted," ruled the court.
"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and its impact on the public at large, convict Vikash Bansal is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh for the offence under section 24 punishable under section 43 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974," said the court.
The complaint filed by Shyam Sunder, Junior Environmental Engineer in DPCC, had stated Haryana Paneer Bhandar, located in Tilak Bazar of North Delhi, was inspected by the Vigilance Squad on May 5, 2000, which found that there was no treatment facility of the trade effluent.
The sentence was awarded under relevant sections of the Water Act to one of the owners Vikash Bansal, while the other owner Jagdish Parshad expired during the course of the trial. The partner, Bansal, however, said that he was falsely implicated and no inspection was carried out. He also stated that his signature was obtained on a blank paper without mentioning the detail and neither the sample of the effluent was lifted by the inspecting team.
The court, however, found that under section 21 of the Act, the collection of the sample is not essential. When the accused stated that no witnesses were examined in the case, the court said, "The defence is adopting a hit and trial policy but unfortunately fallen in his own trap. Law is crystal clear that suggestions, especially, when refuted do not constitute evidence."
The court also sentenced the accused to an additional three years under section 26 of the Act and imposed a fine of like amount stating that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Garbaje")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}