CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 1 of 27

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 15.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 29.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 30.01.2026

+ CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 & CRL.M.A. 25260/2024

MR RAJ KUMAR GUPTA SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S

KANWARJI RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa Senior

Advocate with Mr. Kapil Dutta

and Mr. Vansh Luthra,

Advocates.

versus

DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE

& ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr.

Nishchaya Nigam, Ms. Komal

Narula, Ms. Anugya Gupta

and Ms. Disha Sharma,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The petitioner herein was convicted by the Court of learned

ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter

‗Trial Court‘], in case arising out of CC No. 519826/2016, for

offences punishable under Sections 24 and 25 read with Section 26 of

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 2 of 27

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [hereafter

‗the Water Act‘], vide judgment dated 20.04.2017. Vide order on

sentence dated 25.04.2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three years along with payment

of a total fine of ₹2 lakhs. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

against his conviction and sentence, being CA No. 06/2017, was

decided by the court of Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01, Central, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Appellate Court-I‘], vide judgment

dated 11.08.2017, whereby the conviction was upheld, while the

matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh order

on the point of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Delhi

Pollution Control Board [hereafter ‗DPCC‘] challenged the said

judgment before this Court by way of CRL.REV.P. 111/2018. This

Court, vide judgment dated 19.12.2022, directed the Appellate Court

to adjudicate, in appeal, the issue of sentencing as well. Thereafter,

the appeal of the petitioner, being CA No. 121/2017, was decided by

the court of learned ASJ-01 (POCSO), Central, Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi [hereafter ‗Appellate Court-II‘] on the point of sentence,

wherein the order on sentence dated 25.04.2017 was modified to the

extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced from

three years to two years, while the total fine of ₹2 lakhs was upheld.

2. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, seeks to assail

the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as

the learned Appellate Court-I and Appellate Court-II, whereby he has

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 3 of 27

been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences under the

Water Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was

filed by the DPCC in the backdrop of directions issued by the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in relation to prevention of pollution of river

Yamuna. It was averred that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court had taken

cognizance of a news item published in The Hindustan Times dated

18.07.1994, titled “And Quiet Flows the Maili Yamuna”, which was

registered and heard as I.A. No. 7 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

725/1994. In the said proceedings, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, inter

alia, had directed that no industrial effluent shall be discharged,

directly or indirectly, into river Yamuna with effect from 15.11.1999.

Thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2000, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court

had further directed that no industry in Delhi shall discharge its

effluent into any drain leading to river Yamuna or into the river itself,

in a manner which would result in pollution of the said river. The

Hon‘ble Supreme Court had also observed, vide order dated

13.09.1999, that sufficient statutory provisions were available to the

State to take appropriate action against polluters to ensure that the

river was not polluted, and accordingly directed the National Capital

Territory of Delhi to take necessary measures. Pursuant to the

aforesaid directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the Government

of NCT of Delhi, through the DPCC and the Department of

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 4 of 27

Environment, had issued public notices in newspapers on 15.09.1999,

16.09.1999, and on 14.10.1999, 28.10.1999 and 29.10.1999, directing

all water-polluting units located in industrial as well as non-

conforming areas of Delhi to install individual effluent treatment

plants for treatment of their effluent prior to discharge, on or before

01.11.1999, so as to meet the prescribed standards of the Central

Pollution Control Board. Further public notices were issued on

03.11.1999, 04.11.1999 and 08.02.2000, reiterating that industries

were required to operate strictly in compliance with the directions of

the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, failing which their units would be liable

to closure and other penal action in accordance with law.

4. It is alleged that on 03.06.2000, the industrial unit namely M/s

Kanwarji Raj Kumar, run by the accused Raj Kumar Gupta, was

inspected by a Vigilance Squad comprising SDM (Environment) and

engineers of the DPCC. During the inspection, the accused was found

to be the occupier of the said unit, which was admittedly in operation.

It was alleged that no treatment facility had been provided for the

treatment of trade effluent generated by the unit. The trade effluent

generated during the process of washing of sweets and namkeen

preparation moulds, dishes, containers, and floor washing was

allegedly being discharged without any treatment into the public

sewer. It was further alleged that the accused was operating the unit

without obtaining the requisite consent as mandated under the Water

Act.

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 5 of 27

5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present complaint

was filed on behalf of DPCC by Sh. Shyam Sunder, Junior

Environmental Engineer.

6. Upon filing of the complaint, the accused was summoned. In

pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined CW-1 Sh. Shyam

Sunder, and CW-2 Sh. Ajay Chagti, who was SDM, Kotwali at the

relevant point of time. CW-1 Sh. Shyam Sunder, who had filed the

complaint, deposed that on 03.06.2000, he along with Sh. Ajay

Chagti, SDM, Kotwali, had inspected the polluting unit and found it

to be operational, wherein sweets and namkeens were being

manufactured. He deposed that the accused was discharging effluent

without any treatment facility. He further stated that an inspection

report, Ex. CW-1/1, was prepared in this regard, which bore the

signatures of SDM and the accused. According to him, the untreated

effluent was being discharged directly into the sewer. CW-1 was

cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel. CW-2 Sh.

Ajay Chagti deposed that he was posted as SDM, Kotwali, and that

on 03.06.2000, he had inspected the shop situated at 1972-73,

Chandni Chowk, Delhi, as the head of the Vigilance Squad for

Kotwali Sub-Division, constituted by the Government of NCT of

Delhi pursuant to the directions issued in the ―Maili Yamuna‖ case

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. He stated that the Vigilance Squad

had inspected the second and third floors of the said premises and

found LPG gas chulhas installed therein. He further deposed that no

effluent treatment plant (ETP) had been installed in the premises for

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 6 of 27

treating the discharge before it was released into the sewer. He stated

that the inspection report had been prepared by Sh. Shyam Sunder,

JE, and further deposed that when the JE had asked the in-charge of

the shop to produce the register relating to production/manufacture,

the same was refused. Thereafter, the inspection report was

forwarded to DPCC. CW-2 was also cross-examined at length by the

learned defence counsel.

7. Thereafter, a charge under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Water

Act, punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water Act, was

framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

8. In post-charge evidence, the prosecution again examined the

complainant, CW-1 Sh. Shyam Sunder, and CW-2 Sh. Ajay Chagti.

CW-1 deposed that by virtue of order dated 05.05.2000, Ex. CW-

1/1A, he had been duly authorised to file the present complaint. He

reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and adopted his statement

recorded during pre-charge evidence. CW-1 was cross-examined at

length by the learned defence counsel. CW-2 was recalled in post-

charge evidence and adopted his statement recorded during pre-

charge evidence. He was also cross-examined on behalf of the

accused.

9. The statement of the accused was thereafter recorded under

Section 313 read with Section 281 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‗Cr.P.C.‘], wherein he denied all the

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 7 of 27

allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the

present case.

10. In defence evidence, the accused Raj Kumar Gupta examined

himself as DW-1. He deposed that he was the sole proprietor of the

accused firm. He asserted that no inspection had been carried out on

03.06.2000 and that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers

without any particulars being filled in. He further deposed that

neither any sample of effluent was lifted by the inspecting team nor

were any photographs taken during the alleged inspection. He stated

that pursuant to directions issued by DPCC, one month‘s time had

been granted for installation of an oil and grease trap plant, as

published in various newspapers on 21.06.2000, and that the said

plant had been installed within the stipulated time. He further stated

that a bank guarantee of ₹25,000/- had been furnished in compliance

with the directions of DPCC. He also deposed that his premises was

situated in a non-conforming area of Delhi and, therefore, did not

require any consent under the Water Act. He further stated that the

average production of the accused firm was less than one tonne per

day and, as such, no provisions of the Water Act had been violated.

DW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the

complainant.

11. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted

the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 24 and

25 read with Section 26 of the Water Act and sentenced him in the

manner as noticed hereinabove. The learned Appellate Court-I upheld

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 8 of 27

the conviction of the petitioner. Subsequently, the learned Appellate

Court-II modified the sentence awarded to the petitioner by reducing

the term of imprisonment from three years‘ simple imprisonment to

two years‘ simple imprisonment, while retaining the sentence of

payment of total fine of ₹2,00,000/-.

12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred this revision

petition. The operation of the impugned orders was stayed by the

Predecessor Bench vide order dated 23.08.2024.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that under the unamended provisions of the Water Act, penalties and

punishment were prescribed under Sections 43 and 44, which

provided for a minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year and

six months, extendable up to six years, in addition to fine. It is

contended that subsequent to the enforcement of the Water

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024, the

provision of imprisonment has been completely done away with, and

the amended law now prescribes a monetary penalty ranging from a

minimum of ₹10,000/- up to ₹15 lakhs. It is further provided that in

case of continuing contravention, an additional penalty of ₹10,000/-

per day is leviable for the period of such contravention. It is argued

that the question as to whether an accused would be entitled to the

benefit of a subsequent beneficial amendment is no longer res

integra. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon‘ble

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 9 of 27

Supreme Court in Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh:

Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2010 [order dated 01.10.2019], and

M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.: 2024

INSC 186, wherein it has been held that where an amendment is

beneficial to the accused, the same can be extended not only to

pending cases but also to cases arising out of prior occurrences. It is

submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court, there is no justification to deny the benefit of the

amended Water Act to the petitioner herein. The learned senior

counsel further submits that in other matters, including CRL.L.P. No.

170/2018 and CRL. REV. P. No. 883/2017, this Court had directed

reference of the cases to mediation, pursuant to which the

respondent–DPCC had settled the disputes upon payment of ₹7.5

lakhs as penalty, along with an undertaking by the accused therein. It

is contended that the petitioner is similarly placed and is, therefore,

entitled to parity. In essence, it is argued that since the statutory

provision under which the petitioner was sentenced has already

undergone amendment, and the amended law no longer contemplates

imprisonment, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the

petitioner is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that even the

stand taken by DPCC is in consonance with the position advanced by

the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the punishment awarded to the petitioner be modified in

accordance with the provisions of the amended Water Act.

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 10 of 27

14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent–DPCC

submits that the petitioner was rightly convicted for running a unit

engaged in the manufacture of sweets and namkeens at Gali Paranthe

Wali, Chandni Chowk, without obtaining the requisite consent from

DPCC and for discharging untreated trade effluent from the premises

into a public sewer/drain. It is contended that such discharge was in

clear violation of the directions issued by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725/1994, arising out of the news item

published in The Hindustan Times dated 18.07.1994, as well as in

contravention of the provisions of the Water Act. It is further

submitted that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, while passing various

orders in the aforesaid writ petition, including orders dated

27.08.1999, 13.09.1999 and 24.01.2000, had not drawn any

distinction between polluting units located in conforming or non-

conforming areas. The directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court were

categorical and mandated appropriate action, including closure,

against all units discharging industrial effluent into drains leading to

river Yamuna, irrespective of their location. The learned counsel also

argued that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate

Courts have examined the entire oral and documentary evidence on

record, duly considered all the contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner, and thereafter passed well-reasoned orders convicting the

petitioner for the offences in question. It is argued that no perversity,

illegality, or material irregularity can be attributed to the findings

recorded by the courts below so as to warrant interference by this

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 11 of 27

Court. It is further pointed out that during the inspection conducted

by DPCC in the year 2000, as many as 20 units/persons were arrayed.

Out of the said 20, 17 persons pleaded guilty to the allegations. Of

the remaining three persons who did not plead guilty, the petitioner is

one. It is submitted that the other two persons have subsequently

entered into settlements with DPCC on the terms and conditions

stipulated in the respective Settlement Agreements, which fact has

been recorded in paragraph 5 of the order dated 23.08.2025 passed in

Crl. Rev. P. No. 1054/2024. The learned counsel contends that the

petitioner alone has continued to contest the matter and cannot now

seek parity or indulgence on grounds which stand concluded by

concurrent findings of fact. Accordingly, it is urged that the present

petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

15. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

petitioner as well as the respondent, and has perused the material on

record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

16. Insofar as the scope of present petition is concerned, it is well-

settled that the High Court in criminal revision against conviction is

not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction akin to the appellate court

and the scope of interference is limited. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying the Court as to the

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,

recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 12 of 27

such inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the

same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts

and evidence of the case [Ref: Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of

Chhattisgarh: (2022) 8 SCC 204; State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh

Kishorsinh Rao: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294].

17. During the course of arguments, although the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner primarily addressed submissions

on the issue of sentence, this Court notes that the present revision

petition has been filed raising several grounds on the merits of the

conviction as well. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first briefly

deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present

petition before adverting to the issue of sentence.

18. The principal grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, as

emerging from the petition and the record, may be summarised as

under:

(i) That CW-1 was not competent or duly authorised to file the

complaint, and therefore, the very institution of the complaint

is vitiated.

(ii) There is a clear distinction between a ―stream‖ and a

―sewer‖ under the Water Act, as also between clauses (a) and

(b) of Section 24(1) thereof. According to the petitioner, the

consistent case of the respondent has been that the alleged

discharge of untreated trade effluent was into a ―sewer‖ and

not into a ―stream‖ or water body. It is submitted that despite

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 13 of 27

this, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 24(1)(b)

of the Act, which pertains only to a ‗stream‘, without any

specific charge having been framed for the said offence,

thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

(iii) No photographs of the premises were taken at the time of

the alleged inspection, which casts doubt on the inspection

proceedings and the prosecution case.

(iv) No sample of the alleged polluting effluent was collected

or analysed, and in the absence of any sampling or scientific

analysis, the allegation of discharge of polluting effluent

remains unsubstantiated.

(v) The petitioner has also raised three different defences,

contending that a policy had been framed for halwais having

an annual average production of less than one tonne per day,

permitting them to install an oil and grease trap plant within a

period of one month in accordance with the schematic diagram

issued by DPCC, and that such oil and grease trap plant was

installed by the petitioner well within the stipulated time, as

reflected in newspaper publications dated 21.06.2000, which

was published after the date of alleged inspection. Further, the

then Secretary (Environment), Government of NCT of Delhi,

issued a letter only on 11.10.2000 directing restaurants, eating

places and similar establishments to ensure compliance with

the general standards of discharge into sewered and un-

sewered areas, and therefore no violation could be attributed to

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 14 of 27

the petitioner prior thereto. Lastly, since the petitioner‘s

premises was situated in a non-conforming area, no consent

from DPCC was required.

19. The issue as to whether the complaint in question was filed by

a competent and duly authorised person has already been examined

and dealt with in detail by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial

Court, while repelling the objection raised by the petitioner, observed

that although it was contended on behalf of the accused that only the

Member Secretary of DPCC was competent to institute the

complaint, the said contention was not borne out from the record. The

learned Trial Court took note of document Ex. CW-1/1A, being the

Minutes of Meeting held on 30.03.2000, which clearly reflected that

the competent authority of DPCC had approved the launching of

prosecutions against defaulting water-polluting units and had also

expressly authorised Assistant Environmental Engineers and Junior

Environmental Engineers of DPCC to file complaints under the

Water Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

1981. The observations of the learned Trial Court in this regard are as

under:

―16. It would be necessary to discuss the issue of

maintainability of the complaint first as it is a legal issue raised

by the accused and the decision of this issue will affect the case

of the complainant. It is argued that this complaint is not filed

by the· duly authorized and competent person. Only Member

Secretary of DPCC is authorized to file the present complaint.

However, present complaint is filed by area Environmental

Engineer.

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 15 of 27

17. In rebuttal, it is argued on behalf of the. complainant that

PWl is duly authorized to file the present complaint and

reliance is placed upon document Ex.CWl/lA i.e. copy of

Minutes of Meeting held on 30.03.2000 . Perusal of document

Ex.CWl/lA (MOM), it is clear that the committee (DPCC) has

approved the proposal of launching the prosecution against the

defaulting water polluting units and also approved the

authorization to AEEs/JEEs of DPCC to file complaint under

Water Act and Air Act, 1981. Furthermore, similar issue raised

before the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "DPCC vs A-

one Automobile & Ors" in Cr. l.P. 687 of 2013, has already

been decided in favour of complainant and in view of the order

dated 23.09.2014 passed in that case by Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi, the plea of the accused is not sustainable at all.‖

20. Having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds

no infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid observations and

conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court.

21. As regards the contention relating to non-lifting of samples,

both the courts below have concurrently held that a plain reading of

Section 21 of the Water Act makes it evident that collection and

analysis of a water sample is not a sine qua non for establishing the

commission of an offence under the Act. The offence is complete

upon proof of discharge of untreated trade effluent in contravention

of the statutory provisions from the premises used by the accused,

and the absence of sampling, by itself, does not vitiate the

prosecution.

22. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken a similar view in

Hem Karan Bidhuri v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee: 2019

SCC OnLine Del 8776, wherein it was specifically held that non-

lifting of samples of water for analysis is not fatal to the case of the

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 16 of 27

prosecution, particularly where the inspection report itself clearly

records that no effluent treatment plant had been installed to treat the

effluent. In the said case, it was observed as under:

―7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

scrutiny of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record,

I find that non-lifting of samples of water for analysis is not

fatal to the case of the respondent as it is evident from the

Inspection Report of 21st February, 2000 that no effluent

treatment plant was installed by petitioner to treat the effluent.‖

23. As regards the contention relating to absence of photography

of the spot, this Court is of the opinion that there was no statutory

requirement under the Water Act mandating that the inspecting

officers must carry cameras or take photographs of the premises or

the polluting activity at the time of inspection. It is also borne out

from the record that both prosecution witnesses have clearly and

consistently deposed about the manner in which pollution was being

caused due to discharge of untreated water/trade effluent into

municipal sewer from the petitioner‘s unit. CW-1 categorically stated

that untreated trade effluent was being discharged directly into the

sewer and that such effluent, generated mainly from dish and

container washing as well as floor washing, would increase

suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and oil and grease

content, thereby polluting the water. CW-2 similarly deposed that no

effluent treatment plant had been installed in or near the shop for

treating the discharge before it was drained into the sewer. Both

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 17 of 27

witnesses relied upon the inspection report prepared at the site, which

bears the signatures of the petitioner.

24. The inspection report itself records, inter alia, that the unit was

found in operation, that no treatment facility had been provided for

the treatment of trade effluent, and that the entire trade effluent

generated during the process of washing of sweets and namkeen

preparation moulds, dishes, containers, and floor washing was being

discharged without treatment into the public sewer. Significantly, it is

not in dispute that CW-1 and CW-2 had, in fact, visited the premises

in question and that the petitioner had signed the inspection report.

Although the petitioner has sought to explain his signatures by

claiming that the same were obtained on blank papers, such a plea

does not inspire confidence in the facts of the case.

25. Further, during his cross-examination, the petitioner (DW-1)

himself admitted that as on 03.06.2000 neither an oil and grease trap

plant nor any effluent treatment plant was installed in the kitchen. He

also admitted that the kitchen was connected to the municipal sewer

line and that the manufacturing process involved frying, with raw

material being processed into finished products within the kitchen

itself. These admissions substantially corroborate the respondent‘s

case regarding generation and discharge of untreated effluent into the

municipal sewer.

26. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

absence of photography or sampling does not in any manner weaken

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 18 of 27

the prosecution case. The contention raised on this count is, therefore,

devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

27. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner, urged for the first

time before this Court, is that there exists a statutory distinction

between a ―stream‖ and a ―sewer‖ under the Water Act, as also

between clauses (a) and (b) of Section 24(1). It is contended that the

consistent case of the respondent has been that the petitioner was

allegedly discharging untreated trade effluent into a sewer/public

drain and not into any stream or water body. Despite this, the

petitioner submits that he has been convicted under Section 24(1)(b)

of the Act, which pertains to discharge into a stream, without any

specific charge having been framed for the said offence. This

contention, in the considered opinion of this Court, is wholly

misconceived and without merit. A perusal of the record clearly

reveals that the charge against the petitioner was framed for an

offence under Section 24 of the Water Act simpliciter. The learned

Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 24,

and the said conviction was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court-

I. The relevant portion of Section 24 of the Water Act reads as under:

―24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of

polluting matter, etc.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—

(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous,

noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with

such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter

(whether directly or indirectly) into any stream or well or sewer

or on land; or

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 19 of 27

(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any

stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in

combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of

the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to

a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of

its consequences.‖

28. It is material to note that at no stage did the Courts below draw

any distinction as to whether the conviction was under clause (a) or

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24. The assumption on the

part of the petitioner that he has been convicted specifically under

Section 24(1)(b) is, therefore, unfounded. On the contrary, the

consistent case of the respondent–DPCC, as reflected from the

complaint, the evidence on record, and the findings of the courts

below, has always been that the petitioner was discharging untreated

trade effluent into a public sewer/drain, resulting in water pollution.

Such discharge squarely attracts the provision of Section 24(1)(a) of

the Water Act. In view of the above, the said contention is also

rejected.

29. As regards the defence raised by the petitioner based on an

alleged policy for halwais, newspaper publications dated 21.06.2000,

and a letter dated 11.10.2000 issued by the then Secretary

(Environment), this Court finds no merit in the same. The petitioner

has sought to rely upon these documents to contend that only an

obligation to install an oil and grease trap plant was introduced

subsequently and that no offence had been committed by him.

However, as rightly noted by the learned Trial Court as well as the

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 20 of 27

learned Appellate Court-I, the inspection in the present case was

conducted on 03.06.2000, whereas the newspaper publication relied

upon by the petitioner is dated 21.06.2000 and the letter of the

Secretary (Environment) is dated 11.10.2000. Both documents,

therefore, are subsequent in point of time to the inspection and cannot

be relied upon to justify the petitioner‘s conduct on the date of

inspection. Further, it is evident from the record that the petitioner

failed to prove the said documents in accordance with law. The

learned Appellate Court-I has rightly observed that the alleged

circular/letter dated 11.10.2000 was not proved, and only an

incomplete photocopy thereof was placed on record. Further, the

petitioner relied upon a document marked as ‗DX-1‘, which itself

referred to an attachment, namely the order dated 11.10.2000, but the

said attachment was never placed on record either before the Trial

Court or before the Appellate Court. In the absence of a duly proved

and complete document, no benefit could have been extended to the

petitioner on the basis of such material. Even otherwise, CW-1 had

categorically stated in his cross-examination that the schematic

diagram relied upon by the petitioner had been published only after

the raid conducted in the present case.

30. As regards the defence that no consent from DPCC was

required since the petitioner‘s premises was situated in a non-

conforming area, this Court is of the opinion that it is evident from

the record that the directions issued by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725/1994 were categorical and made no

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 21 of 27

distinction between polluting units located in conforming or non-

conforming areas. In compliance with the said directions, repeated

public notices were issued, specifically directing all water-polluting

units located in industrial as well as non-conforming areas to install

individual effluent treatment plants prior to discharging effluents.

The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim exemption from compliance

merely on the ground that his unit was located in a non-conforming

area. The courts below have correctly appreciated this aspect, and

this Court finds no infirmity in their conclusions.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view

that the material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner was

operating the unit without obtaining the requisite consent and was

discharging untreated trade effluent into the public sewer, in

contravention of the statutory provisions and the directions of the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has rightly been

held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 24 and 25 read

with Section 26 of the Water Act.

32. Considering now the aspect of sentence, it is to be noted that

at the relevant time, Section 43 of the Water Act prescribed

punishment for contravention of Section 24, whereas Section 44

prescribed punishment for contravention of Sections 25 and 26 of the

Act. Both the said provisions provided for a minimum sentence of

one year and six months and a maximum sentence of six years‘

simple imprisonment, in addition to fine. In the present case, the

learned Trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 22 of 27

imprisonment for a period of three years for each offence and

imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each offence. The learned Appellate

Court-II, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence of

imprisonment to two years‘ simple imprisonment.

33. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has,

however, assailed the sentence on the ground that subsequent to the

conviction of the petitioner, the Water Act has undergone

amendment, whereby the provision of imprisonment has been done

away with and the punishment has been confined to imposition of

monetary penalty. It is contended that the said amendment being

beneficial in nature ought to be extended to the petitioner, and that no

sentence of imprisonment should now be sustained.

34. This Court notes that the Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024 has done away with the punishment

and has now introduced a penalty, which shall not be less than ten

thousand rupees but may extend to fifteen lakh rupees, and where

such contravention continues, an additional penalty of ten thousand

rupees for every day during which such contravention continues.

35. In this regard, this Court‘s attention has been drawn to the

decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of A.K. Sarkar & Co.

v. State of West Bengal: (2024) 10 SCC 727, wherein it has been

held as under:

―10. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was

repealed by the introduction of the Food Safety and Standards

Act, 2006 where Section 52 provides a maximum penalty of

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 23 of 27

Rs.3,00,000/- for misbranded food. There is no provision for

imprisonment.

***

11. Whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of the new

legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently

prescribed under the new law? This Court in T. Barai v. Henry

Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177, had held that when an amendment

is beneficial to the accused it can be applied even to cases

pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the

time of the commission of offence. It was said as under:-

―22. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited

under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is

that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for

violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the

act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a

penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under

the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It

is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates

new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of

offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor

can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be

applicable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces

the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)

of the Act, there is no reason why the accused should not have

the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial

construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type

should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The principle

is based both on sound reason and common sense.‖

12. A reference to the above case was given by this Court in

Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448 where

six months of imprisonment awarded under the Act was

modified to only a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

13. The above principle was applied by this Court again in

Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC

763 and the sentence of three months of imprisonment and

Rs.500/- of fine for misbranding under the Act, 1954 was

modified to that of only a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

14. The present appellant no.2, at this stage, is about 60 years

of age and the crime itself is of the year 2000, and twentyfour

years have elapsed since the commission of the crime. Vide

Order dated 06.08.2018, this Court had granted exemption

from surrendering to appellant no.2.

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 24 of 27

15. Considering all aspects, more particularly the nature of

offence, though we uphold the findings of the Courts below

regarding the offence, but we hereby convert the sentence of

appellant no.2 from three months of simple imprisonment

along with fine of Rs.1,000/- to a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand only). The sentence of appellant no.1 which is

for a fine of Rs. 2000/- is upheld. The amount shall be

deposited with the concerned Court within a period of three

weeks from today. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.‖

36. Thus, it has been held that while Article 20(1) of the

Constitution prohibits retrospective application of penal provisions

which create a new offence or enhance punishment, there is no bar on

applying a subsequent amendment which reduces the punishment

prescribed for an offence. Where an amendment is beneficial to the

accused, the same can be extended even to cases arising out of prior

occurrences and to cases pending adjudication.

37. However, this Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the

inspection conducted by DPCC in the year 2000 covered as many as

20 units/premises. Out of the said 20, as many as 17 persons chose to

plead guilty at the initial stage itself. Of the remaining three persons

who did not plead guilty, the petitioner is one. The other two persons

have subsequently settled their disputes with DPCC on agreed terms.

The record further shows that even in respect of one of such persons,

namely Vikash Bansal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the year

2018, permitted settlement inter alia on payment of ₹7.5 lakhs to

DPCC, in addition to ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited with the Prime

Minister‘s Relief Fund, along with a further agreement for plantation

of 100 trees to contribute towards making Delhi greener.

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 25 of 27

38. The petitioner, however, did not opt for settlement at the

relevant time and continued to contest the matter through trial,

appeal, revision and thereafter. It is only now, at this stage, that the

petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid order passed by the

Coordinate Bench and has urged that he may be granted similar relief

by removal of the sentence of imprisonment and by imposing such

other conditions as this Court may deem appropriate in view of the

Amendment in the Water Act.

39. While considering such plea, this Court is mindful that

pollution of water bodies, particularly rivers, has serious and

long-lasting consequences. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has

repeatedly emphasised the need for strict compliance with

environmental laws. Small eateries, restaurants and food-

processing units, though individually limited in scale, collectively

contribute significantly to pollution when untreated effluents are

discharged into public sewers and drains leading to rivers. Such

establishments cannot be absolved of their responsibility merely

on the ground of size or scale of operation. Compliance with

environmental norms is a responsibility shared by all, and the need

for deterrence remains an important factor while dealing with

offences relating to the environment.

40. At the same time, this Court is required to balance the above

considerations with the settled position of law that a subsequent

beneficial amendment, which does away with imprisonment and

confines the punishment to imposition of monetary penalty, can be

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 26 of 27

extended even to pending cases. In the present matter, the petitioner

is about 59 years of age and the offence in question dates back to the

year 2000. More than two decades have elapsed since then and the

petitioner has been facing trial for about 25 years. It is also not in

dispute that the petitioner has already deposited the fine of ₹2 lakhs

imposed upon him. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the

passage of considerable time since its commission, the age of the

petitioner, and the legislative intent reflected in the amendment to the

Water Act whereby imprisonment has been consciously done away

with, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice

would be adequately served by substituting the sentence of

imprisonment with a substantial monetary penalty, coupled with

appropriate restorative measures, rather than by requiring the

petitioner to undergo further incarceration at this stage.

41. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner,

the order on sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of

imprisonment is set aside. In addition to the fine of ₹2 lakhs already

deposited, the petitioner is directed to pay a further fine of ₹10 lakhs

which shall be deposited with the DPCC, within a period of 2 months

from date. The petitioner is also directed to undertake plantation of

100 trees in coordination with the Government of NCT of Delhi,

through its Forest Department, in and around Chandni Chowk area or

any other location to be identified by the said Department. It is

directed that each tree shall have a minimum of two-years‘ nursery-

age and a trunk height of six feet. The petitioner shall file a

CRL.REV.P. 1054/2024 Page 27 of 27

compliance affidavit along with proof of plantation before this Court

within a period of three months from date.

42. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the conviction of the

petitioner is upheld and the revision petition alongwith pending

application stands disposed of in the above terms.

43. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JANUARY 29, 2026/ns

T.D.