# Gomti Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 848 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-15 - **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 82 of 2026 - **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gomti-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54480 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES company. The inspection report is also pertaining to the same year. Therefore. the applicants have been impleaded in the complaint. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi (supra) and this Court in the case of R.P. Rastogi (supra), it is held that it is the Board of Directors, who are responsible for act or commission of the offence. It cannot be said that one or two of the Board of Directors were not having any knowledge of the aforesaid fact or they have nothing to do with the unit. This Court cannot weigh the evidence and do mini trial here. The defence advanced by the applicants cannot be scanned here, rather trial is required for this. Therefore, no illegality or infirmity in the impugned summoning order. 21. Both the applications being devoid of merit, are rejected. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 848 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 82 of 2026 Gomti Prasad ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Issue for consideration The applicant sought an order for the expeditious disposal of a public nuisance case pending since july 2024 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Baldirai, Sultanpur. Upon a preliminary objection by the State, the petition was converted from article 227 of the constitution to section 529 of the BNSS, prompting a Single Judge to refer the matter to a larger bench due to conflicting opinions on whether the High Court can monitor Executive Magistrate under that section. Headnotes A. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023-Section 529-High Court's Power of Continuous Superintendance-Scope and Jurisdiction-Executive Magistrate Vs. Judicial Magistrate-Reference to larger bench-Direction sought for expeditious disposal of a public nuisance case pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate-Conversion of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to an application under section 529 BNSS-Oral prayer allowed by Single Judge-Express wording of section 529 BNSS limits High Court's continuous supervisory power to "Court of Session" and "Court of Judicial Magistrates-Prior coordinate bench and division bench rulings holding that High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over Executive Magistrates under section 529 BNSS/section 483 CrPC-Contradiction arising from the order allowing conversion of the writ petition-Reference made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to resolve the legal conundrum-Whether High Court can issue directions to an Executive Magistrate for speedy disposal under section 529 BNSS, or if the sole remedy lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(Para 9 to 12) Held 4 All. Gomti Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 849 The court held that legal issue regarding the High Court's jurisdiction over Executive Magistrates under Section 529 BNSS requires authoritative determination by a larger bench. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate bench to resolve whether the remedy for expeditious disposal before an Executive Magistrate lies under section 529 BNSS or Article 227 of the Constitution. (E-6) Case law Cited Sarjoo and Anr. Vs. Babadin and Anr. (1975) CrLJ 1562 (Allahabad), Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of UP and 5 Others,(2025) : AHC : 88381-referred to. List of Acts Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. List of Keywords Executive Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Continuous Superintendence, Expeditious Disposal, Public Nuisance, Section 152 BNSS/Section133 CrPC, Subordination of Magistrates, Reference to larger Bench, Conflict of Precedents/Contradictory opinion. Case Arising from CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.- 82 OF 2026 Gomti Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others From the judgment and order dated 15.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Appearances for Parties Advs. for Applicant(s) Ravi Shankar Mishra Advs. for Opposite Party(s) G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.) 1. Initially, the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India registered as MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.1709 of 2026 was filed by the applicant with following prayers : "A. Issue an order or direction to the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Baldirai, District-Sultanpur/Respondent No. 02 to decide the case no. 4727/2024 no. (Computerized T202404680904727) U/S-152 B.N.S.S/133 CrPC, (Gomti Prasad Vs Vijay Kumar Mishra and Other), which is pending since 31.07.2024, within the time specified by this Hon'ble Court. B. Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner. C. To award the petition with cost to the Petitioner." 2. The Hon'ble Single judge passed an order on 07.04.2026 in the petition, which reads as under :- 850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. याि चकाकतार् के ि वद्वा न ििधवक्ता श्र ििचन पाण्डे य तथा राज्य िरकार के ि वद्वा न िपरशािक य ििधवक्ता प्र थम श्र गणेश दत्त भट्ट को िुना। 2. भारत य िंि वधान के िनुच्छे द 227 के िंतगतत प्रि् तु त इि याि चका द्व ा रा याि चकाकतार् नेि वद्वा न उिपजलाि धकार , बल्द राय, िुल्ता नपुर को वाद िंख्या 4727/2019, िंतगतत भारत य नािगरक िुरक्षा िंि हता, 2023 क धारा 152/ दण्ड प्र ि क्र या िंि हता क धारा 133 (कंप्यू टर कृत वाद िंख्या -T202404680904727) जो ि क ि दनांक 31.07.2024 िे लंि बत है,के ि नस्ता रण हेतु ि नदेशत देने का िनुरोध ि कया है। 3. ि वद्वा न िपर शािक य ििधवक्ता ने प्र ा रंि भक आिपत्त रख ि क यह िनुतोष भारत यनािगरक िुरक्षा िंि हता क धारा 529 के िंतगतत प्रि् तु त करके प्र ाप् त ि कया जा िकता है तथावैधाि नक उपचार उपलब् ध होने के कारण िंवैधाि नक प्र ा वधान में याि चका पोषण य नह ं है। 4. उपरोक्त आिपत्त रखे जाने पर याि चकाकतार् के ि वद्वा न ििधवक्ता ने कहा ि क उनको इि याि चका को भारत य नािगरक िुरक्षा िंि हता क धारा 529 के िंतगतत याि चका िपरिवतत करने क िनुिमत द जाए। 5. याि चकाकतार् के ि वद्वा न ििधवक्ता के मौि खक िनुरोध पर यह िनुिमत द जात है ि क याि चका में वांि छत िंशोधन करके याि चका को भारत य िंि वधान के िनुच्छे द 227 के ि् था न पर भारत य नािगरक िुरक्ष ा िंि हता क धारा 529 के ितंगतत ि कया जाए। 6. कायालतय को यह ि नदेशत ि दया जाता है ि क याि चका को पुनः भारत य नािगरक िुरक्षा िंि हताक धारा 529 के िंतगतत पंज कृत करके ि दनांक 15.04.2026 को नव न वादों क िूच मेंिूच बद्ध ि कया जाए।" 3. In compliance of said order, the petition has been converted into 3. In compliance of said order, the petition has been converted into an application under Section 529 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS"). 4. Heard Shri Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I assisted by Shri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-opposite party nos.1 and 2. 5. The case under Section 152 BNSS preferred by the applicant is pending before SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Baldirai, District-Sultanpur, who is an "Executive Magistrate" and he is under the superintendence of "District Magistrate", as provided under Section 17 of BNSS. 6. Section 529 BNSS provides that every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Judges and Magistrates. 4 All. Gomti Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 851 7. Further, from a bare perusal of Section 529 BNSS, it is clear that High Court shall exercise its superintendence over "the Courts of Session" and "Courts of Judicial Magistrates" whereas "Executive Magistrate" i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not come within the purview of Section 529 BNSS. The phrases used in Section 529 BNSS are "the Courts of Session" and "Courts of Judicial Magistrates". 8. Various provisions of BNSS, particularly, Sections 13, 14, 17, 152 of BNSS . Sections 13 of BNSS provides every Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Similarly, Section 14 of BNSS provides that in every district, the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive Magistrates and shall appoint one of them to be the District Magistrate. At the same time, Section 17 of BNSS provides that all Executive Magistrates shall be subordinate to the District Magistrate, and every Executive Magistrate (other than the Sub-divisional Magistrate) exercising powers in a sub-division shall also be subordinate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, subject, to the general control of the District Magistrate. 9. Relevant sections of BNSS are quoted herein-below:- "Section 13. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates. (1) Every Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Sanhita, as to the distribution of business among the Judicial Magistrates subordinate to him. Section 14. Executive Magistrates. (1) In every district, the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive Magistrates and shall appoint one of them to be the District Magistrate. (2) The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have such of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Sanhita or under any other law for the time being in force as may be directed by the State Government. (3) Whenever, in consequence of the office of a District Magistrate becoming vacant, any officer succeeds temporarily to the executive administration of the district, such officer shall, pending the orders of the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the duties respectively conferred and imposed by this Sanhita on the District Magistrate. 852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (4) The State Government may place an Executive Magistrate in charge of a sub-division and may relieve him of the charge as occasion requires; and the Magistrate so placed in charge of a sub-division shall be called the Sub-divisional Magistrate. (5) The State Government may, by general or special order and subject to such control and directions as it may deem fit to impose, delegate its powers under sub-section (4) to the District Magistrate. (6) Nothing in this section shall preclude the State Government from conferring, under any law for the time being in force, on a Commissioner of Police all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate. Section 17. Subordination of Executive Magistrates. (1) All Executive Magistrates shall be subordinate to the District Magistrate, and every Executive Magistrate (other than the Sub-divisional Magistrate) exercising powers in a subdivision shall also be subordinate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, subject, to the general control of the District Magistrate. (2) The District Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Sanhita, as to the distribution or allocation of business among the Executive Magistrates subordinate to him. Section 152. Conditional order for removal of nuisance. (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers- (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or 4 All. Gomti Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 853 (e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order? (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or (v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order, or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court. Explanation.-A "public place" includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes. Section 529. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts. Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Judges and Magistrates." 10. Sarjoo and Anr. Vs. Babadin and Anr 1975 CrLJ 1562 (Allahabad) is an authority over the present controversy. The relevant portion of the said judgement is quoted as hereunder: "The argument based on Section 483 is, however, wholly misconceived. That section says that every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to 854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrate. There is no question of expeditious disposal of any pending matter, as the case already stands decided. With regard to the exercise of superintendence for the proper disposal of cases, proceeding on the assumption that the supervisory power is both judicial and administrative, it is apparent that it can be exercised only over Judicial Magistrate and not Executive Magistrates. Under Section 6 of the Code, Executive Magistrates constitute a class of criminal Courts different from the class of criminal Courts manned by the Judicial Magistrates. Sections 11 to 15 deal with Judicial Magistrates, while Executive Magistrates have been dealt with by Section 20 to 23. Proceedings under Section 145 lie within the jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates and not judicial Magistrates. The impugned order was passed by an Executive Magistrate and there is thus no supervisory power to correct a mistake committed by such a Magistrate." 11. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of UP and 5 Others, 2025:AHC:88381 has observed as under : "17. The aforesaid definition clearly provides a distinction between the Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates and since the provisions of Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS) have been made applicable to Judicial Magistrates, they are not applicable to the orders passed by an Executive Magistrate, hence relying upon the aforesaid provisions and case laws, it can be safely concluded that the High Court under Section 529 BNSS (Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is not required to make any superintendence over the working of a Executive Magistrate and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C. (Section 529 of BNSS) can be issued to the Executive Magistrates where a case under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is pending before it like the present one as prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS)." 12. After going through the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in case UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.1709 of 2026 and the judgments rendered in Sarjoo (Supra) and Manoj Kumar Yadav (Supra), this Court finds that there is contradictory opinion which requires consideration by a larger Bench. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter should be placed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice for referring the matter to a larger Bench for consideration of the following issue: "Whether while exercising the power conferred under Section 529 BNSS/Section 483 CrPC, the High Court can direct an "Executive Magistrate" for expeditious disposal of the cases or the remedy lies under Article 227 of Constitution of India?" 13. The record shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench of such strength, as his Lordship deems fit, for determination of the issue. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 854 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 872 of 2026 Ravindra Pratap ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties