SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY vs DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss — 2022 CLD 626 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHI

Case information

Citation: 2022 CLD 626 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHI
Year: 2022
Reporter: CLD
Parties: SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY vs DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 17; S. 265-K; S. 1; Sindh Environmental Protection Act; Pakistan Environmental Protection Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY VS DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss. 17 & 1---Initial environmental examination and environmental impact assessment--- Commencement of the Act--- Prospective application---Scope---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency through its authorized officer filed a complaint alleging therein that the accused had initiated construction of a project of ground plus 16 floors high rise building without seeking environmental approval as required under S. 17 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014---Accused sought premature acquittal through an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Construction of the project had commenced prior to promulgation of Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014---Violation, if any, had constituted an offence punishable under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997---Since no action under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, was initiated against the accused on commission of alleged offence, therefore, the penal provisions of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 forming a part of substantive law and not procedural one, could not be termed to have retrospective effect as such penal provisions followed by the conviction and punishment, could not take away the right of a person by applying it retrospectively---Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014, as per S. 1(3) had come into force at once, replacing the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, therefore, it could not have retrospective effect so as to apply it for the past matter, retrospectively---No probability of conviction of accused existed in the case of which the very charge was groundless---Accused was acquitted of the charge. Head NotesCase Description

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

2022 CLD 1051 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIMADINA BREEDING (PVT.) LIMITED VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY S. 1---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Envi…
2022 CLD 502 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIARIF BELGAUMI VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) S. 17---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental…
2022 CLD 233 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIRAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Ss. 11, 13 & 14---Prohibition o…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED S. 5(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 [since repe…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 6, 8(a) & 10(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963…
2022 CLD 656 SUPREME-COURTMrs. NAILA NAEEM YOUNUS VS INDUS SERVICES LIMITED S. 126---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) [since substituted by the Companies Act, 2017…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English