•-

ii\ i HE COUR I OF THE lilrd JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASSPANVEL

AT; PANVEL.REGULAR CRIMINAL CASE NO.207/2014.

Maharashtra Pollution Co r'">3rd• : h Floor, < [a\\g

n (East), Mumbai-400 0'2,(Represented by Shri. Dillr K.Khedkar,Age. 47 yrs.Regional Officers-RaigadMaharashtra Pollution Control Board,

nng his office ai F ic i Bhawan,6th Floor, Sector-11,CBD-Befapur, Navi Murnbai-400614

\V

I M/s. Paradies Infra-Con Pvt. Ltd.Project Co-OrdintcrMr. LJmesh Kumar Upadhyay,

3 It),

Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mjmbai,

2. Mr. Urnesh Kumar Upadhyay,:\ , i i .t y : Adult,

Project Co-Ordinaior,M/s. Paradies Infrom-Con Pvt.Ltd.F-501/516, Persipolis,

?.. Mr. Jitendra Rawlani,Age Adult,M/s. Paradiese Infra-Con Pvt. Ltd.B-501/51'6, Persipolis,

Sector- 17, Vashi Navi Mumbai.

Complainant.

. Accusec

Qn:ence U/Ssc. 15 and IS of Thee n t _[P rolec tic QjA^L Jf);l6;

1. Adv. D.B.Pali! for complainant.2. Adv. Soniya Pawar for accused.

J U U b ivi b \\(Date : 11ih April 2014)

1. The accused are facing trial for the offence under section 15

d 16 of The Environment (Pr ' (Act 1986.

1 "he case of i / c : jfafnani p rc 3 jcutioi ; as i nder:-

! he complainant is the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,

Constituted under section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of

lution) Act 1974 and th, ard is rspresei :ec by Shri. Dilip K.

Khedkar, who is regional officer «t Raigad for the Mahaia.shtra Pollution

Control Board and he is authorized officer for the purpose of visit,

inspection etc. The complainant has contented that accused No. 1 is a

pri ate company who is represented by fJr. Umesh Kumal Upaa'hya and

accused No. 2 is projec! co-ordinatcr and accused No. 3 is site in-charge

of the accused No. 1 company and iherefore ihey arc directly in-chargs of

f-sponsible to the company for the conduct of business of the

:•;; npany. The comolainan: further aHeged that the accused have applied

foi gr Environment Cle iranc - , required under the provision of the

notification but they have started their actuai construction of housing

fsfc'i^d o^ ^n DT^O admes''n'nci V ' ~ ~"^- m2 •• "'• ' ?' ; " ;i' No -~;5D

at plot No. 45, 52, 52A. without ob aining prior Environment clearanca of

Government as per the E'A notification 2006 and accordingly the

complainant has issued show cause notice dated 22-04-2002 to the

accused for violation of the El A Notification 2006 and thereby the

accused have committed an offence punishable under section 15 and 16

of The Environment (Protection)Act 1936. So t!i3 complaint has filed the

present case against the accused and prayerj to punish the accused as

3sr tiie provisions of law for the aforesaid offence.

'

*'.*

j

lay on behalf ol accused No. 1 company accused No. 2,

and accused No. 2 and 3 for themselves are appeared before the court

by suo-moto by engaging their Advocate and they have submitted before

n • ">":" d'ie to overs! ; ' ; - '• tent! ' allei d 3 is

comtriiUed but they are voluntarily pleading guilty for the offence levelled

• • "• '- !f ^ r c~" . el' ...... ;c

they submitted pursis in respect of pie-ad •;. lilty before the court.

charge has bfeen framed against them to which they again pleaded guilty.

Fhey ware asked to rethink their confession as tney are apprised that

: would be convicted. However, the sn used remained firm on -

leir decision to confess the guilt with prayer fro minimum punishment. Lei.

Advocate for the complainant submitted that accused be punished with

maximum fine. Accused submitted that they are innocent and a-j actsd

upon the C1DCO permission and they are sarning their bracie and I

en the said project and due to stoppage of the construction their financial

condition is not sound snd they are the only earninc member c* theii

family and the children are depends upon them. So also they submitted

thai leniency be shown while passing the sentence and prayed for

minimum fine. As c . : . . : , plea* ?d gui'ty vi ••- ; ' ; /1 hence ! pass the

following order :

O R D E R

] j Accused Ho.1 to 3 are hereby convicted vide Section 241 ofCr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 15 and 15 of TheEnvironment (Protection) ACL 1985 and sentenced to suffer simpleimprisonment for til! rising of the court end to pay fine Rs. 50,0007-. (FiftyThousand) each in default S. I. for one month each.

2] The copy of judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.

3] Judgment pronoui .ced an' : ri; :tated in open Court.

11

Panvel.Dt.: 11 th Aorii 2014,

(D.S.Pataie)s-e - r?.U Judfcla! Maaistrata P.O. Panvel.• ' ' • ' ; U-C>- o. -, - c , , f _ , -..« t er..

.-- I_ )' I