Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has upheld the conviction of a Chandni Chowk-based sweet and snack manufacturing unit for discharging untreated trade effluent into the municipal sewer system, which feeds drains leading to the Yamuna. While maintaining the finding of guilt for operating without the requisite environmental consent and releasing untreated effluent from cleaning and processing activities, the Court modified the sentence by setting aside the imprisonment. In addition to the fine already deposited, the unit has been directed to deposit a further ₹10 lakh with the pollution control authority within two months and to undertake plantation of 100 trees in coordination with the Delhi government, with compliance to be filed within three months.

Also Read: Paying UP Primary Teachers ₹7K For A Decade Is Unfair Practice And Begar: Supreme Court Orders UP Govt To Pay ₹17K Monthly From FY 2017-18 With Arrears

An inspection conducted by a vigilance squad comprising officials of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded that the unit was operational and that effluent generated from washing processes was being released untreated into the sewer. Based on the inspection report and oral evidence of officials, prosecution was initiated.

The trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 24 and 25 read with Section 26 of the Water Act and imposed imprisonment along with fine. The conviction was upheld in appeal, though the sentence was reduced. The present criminal revision challenged both conviction and sentence, with emphasis on the applicability of the 2024 amendment to the Water Act, which removed imprisonment as a prescribed punishment.

The Court observed: “This Court is mindful that pollution of water bodies, particularly rivers, has serious and long-lasting consequences…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.”

The Court observed “the scope of interference in a criminal revision against conviction is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in an appeal.” It stated “the revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings and sentence.”

On the issue of authorisation to file the complaint, the Court recorded “the competent authority of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had approved the launching of prosecution and expressly authorised Assistant Environmental Engineers and Junior Environmental Engineers to file complaints under the Water Act.” It further observed “the objection regarding lack of competence of the complainant is not borne out from the record.”

Addressing the contention regarding non-lifting of effluent samples, the Court stated “collection and analysis of water samples is not a sine qua non for establishing the commission of an offence under the Water Act.” The Court observed “the offence is complete upon proof of discharge of untreated trade effluent in contravention of statutory provisions.”

On the argument relating to discharge into a sewer as opposed to a stream, the Court recorded “the charge against the petitioner was framed for an offence under Section 24 of the Water Act simpliciter.” It stated “the assumption that conviction was under Section 24(1)(b) alone is unfounded.” The Court observed “discharge of untreated trade effluent into a public sewer squarely attracts Section 24(1)(a) of the Act.”

With respect to evidence, the Court observed “the inspection report clearly recorded that no treatment facility had been installed and bore the signatures of the petitioner.” It stated “the admissions made by the petitioner during cross-examination corroborate the prosecution case regarding discharge of untreated effluent.”

On sentencing, the Court recorded “the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024 has consciously removed imprisonment as a mode of punishment.” It observed “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,” 

The Court directed “while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. In addition to the fine of ₹2 lakhs already deposited, the petitioner shall pay a further fine of ₹10 lakhs to the Delhi Pollution Control Committee within a period of two months.”

Also Read: Government Employee Submitting Fake Medical Certificates To Cover Unauthorised Absence Commits Grave Misconduct Justifying Dismissal: Delhi High Court

“The petitioner shall undertake plantation of 100 trees in coordination with the Government of NCT of Delhi through its Forest Department, either in and around the Chandni Chowk area or at any other location to be identified by the said Department.” The Court directed “each tree to be planted shall have a minimum nursery age of two years and a minimum trunk height of six feet at the time of plantation.”

“The petitioner shall file a compliance affidavit before this Court along with documentary proof of plantation within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. Subject to the aforesaid modification in sentence, the conviction of the petitioner stands upheld and the criminal revision petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Dutta and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr. Nishchaya Nigam, Ms. Komal Narula, Ms. Anugya Gupta and Ms. Disha Sharma, Advocates

Case Title: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Another

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:767

Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 1054/2024

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma