Company officer liability under pollution law upheld where complaint defect in naming accused was only technical and curable.

Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 makes a company and the persons in charge of its business liable for offences committed by the company, and also extends liability to directors and officers where consent, connivance or neglect is shown. A complaint need not fail merely because the industrial unit was described instead of the owning company if the pleading as a whole discloses the company's ownership and control, the alleged breach of sections 25 and 26, and the role of the officers involved. The defect was treated as technical and curable by amendment, so quashing was not justified and the prosecution was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors of a company could be prosecuted for offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in the absence of a prosecution against the company itself, and whether the complaint was liable to be quashed for the defect in naming the industrial unit instead of the owning company.

Analysis: Section 47 of the Act makes not only the company but also every person in charge of and responsible to it for the conduct of its business liable where an offence by the company is committed, and sub-section (2) further extends liability to directors and other officers where the offence is committed with consent, connivance or neglect. The complaint, read as a whole, showed that the industrial unit was owned and controlled by the company, that the statutory requirements under sections 25 and 26 had allegedly been violated, and that the persons arraigned were those in control of the company's affairs. The defect in describing the accused company was technical and capable of being cured by amendment, and did not justify quashing the prosecution. The matter could not be disposed of on that curable infirmity when the alleged contravention of the Act and the role of the officers were otherwise disclosed.

Conclusion: The officers could be proceeded against under section 47, and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on the ground urged; the appeal was therefore allowed and the prosecution restored.

---