# Rajive Mundhra v. The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt Home,Lko And Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 839
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-15
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 22 of 2023
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajive-mundhra-v-the-state-of-u-p-thru-prin-secy-govt-deptt-home-lko-and-anr-54717
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
839
of the said Committee shall be final and binding on the records of the forest right. We do not find
any plausible reason as to why the Committee ought not to have made an assessment of the forest
rights of the forest dwellers, without taking into account the object and scope behind the Act..

13. Having, discussed the object and scope behind the enactment of the 'Schedule Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006', we find ourselves in total
disagreement with the impugned order. Although the impugned order has been passed on 15.03.2021,
however we find that the Authority concerned has neither discussed nor appreciated the specific intent of
the Act and has presumably short-circuited the existing rights of the petitioners by relying on an interim
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without even discussing as to whether the said interim order is
applicable to the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances or not.

14. Thus, we hold that the impugned order, in our view, has not taken into account the relevant
provisions of the Act and has only dealt with the Hon'ble Supreme Court interim order that was
passed in the year 2000, previous to enactment of the Act.

15. In light of the same, the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 is quashed and set aside with a
direction upon the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or their
representatives, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The authority
concerned shall be at liberty for requisition of all such records, which may be necessary for
adjudication of the rights of the petitioners, including the latest judgement/order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any, for arriving at a fair, legal and proper decision, keeping in mind the
object to be achieved under the Act.

16. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein
livelihood of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes has been adversely effected, we provide that till
such time the order is passed by the District Level Committee, the forest dwellers shall be vested
with all their existing rights as enumerated in the Act, in accordance with law.

17. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 839
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 22 of 2023
Alongwith
Application U/S 482. No. 9058 of 2023

Rajiv Mundhra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to a criminal prosecution launched by the U.P. Pollution Control Board against M/s
Simplex Infrastructures Limited and its Directors under section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981.

Headnotes
A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act,1981-Section 37,40-Offences by companies-Vicarious liability of Directors-Summoning
order-Quashing of-Complaint filed against contractor company and its directors for operating
an industrial project without mandatory environmental clearances and consent-Directors sought
quashing of the summoning order on the ground that they had resigned from the company long
before the commencement of project, relying on Form 32 and Form DIR-12-Conversely, the
Pollution Control Board produced records from the Ministry of Corporate affairs portal for the
year of the offence showing the applicants as active Directors-The defence of resignation and
lack of active participation in the day-to-day business of the company involves highly disputed
questions of fact-Such evidentiary disputes cannot be scanned, weighed, or adjudicated by the
High Court under its inherent jurisdiction-Environmental statutes impose a collective
responsibility upon the Board of Directors for compliance-Since a prima facie case exists based
on official corporate registry records at the time of offence, the summoning order suffers from
no illegality.(Para 13 to 21)

Held
The court found the trial court's order was perfectly legal as it rested on sufficient initial record from the year
of the offense. Conflicting live data on the MCA (Ministry of Corporate affairs) online registry makes the
date of resignation a disputed question of fact that must be adjudicated by the trial court. Environmental
compliance u/s 40 of the Act, 1981 binds the entire board of directors collectively; individual directors cannot
escape threshold prosecution by claiming a lack of specific knowledge. (E-6)

Case law Cited
U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 147, Para 36 and 37,
Application u/s 482 No. 67 of 2023, Nagarajan Krishna Murthy Dire. Geo/Pvt. Ltd Vs State of U.P. & Anr
decided on 27.01.2023, Criminal Misc. Case No. 1295 of 2006, S.P. Rastogi Vs State of U.P. & Anr, decided on
09.07.2009.-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981

List of Keywords
Form No. 32/Form DIR-12, Section 40, AIR Act 1981, Vicarious liability of directors, Collective responsibility,
Disputed question of fact, Mini-trial, Prima facie case, Alternative statutory remedy, MCA (Ministry of
Corporate affairs), Environmental clearance, Sub-Contractor liability, Resignation of Directors. UPPCB.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICITON: APPLICATION U/S 482 No.- 22 OF 2023
Rajive Mundhra Vs. The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt Home,Lko And Anr.
From the judgment and order dated 15.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Applicant(s)
Asim Kumar Singh, Ghandra Bhushan Pandey
Advs. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A., Ashok Kumar Verma
4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
841
(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the cases, therefore, they
are being heard and decided by a common judgement.

2. Both the applications have been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.101 of 2021, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s Simplex
Infrastructures Limited, under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 ( for short ?Air Act?) and the summoning order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Special
Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow.

3. The facts, in nut shell, are that applicants are completely innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the instant case by opposite party no.2 without ascertaining any fact regarding the
functions of the company. It is said that on the basis of a written complaint filed by opposite party
no.2 on 06.01.2021, a complaint case was registered before the Magistrate. However, the applicants
denied the allegations made in the complaint as being false and misconceived.

4. The U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited in order to expand the Panki Thermal
Power Station Plant started to establish 1 x 660 Megawatt capacity of Thermal Power Plant and the
contract to construct the said power plant was given to the Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited on
31.03.2018. For the aforesaid project, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climates Change,
Government of India has approved the clearance and provided ?No Objection Certificate? on
29.06.2017. Thereafter, U.P. Pollution Control Board has also approved the clearance to the said
project vide order dated 25.06.2018. Thereafter, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited started to
construct the expansion of Thermal Power Plant in the Panki, Kanpur. Bharat Heavy Electrical
Limited in order to construct and complete the said project, hire some companies to do civil work
for the project, thus, sublet its contract to those companies, in which M/s Simplex Infrastructure
Limited is one of the companies, working and doing civil work through the sub-contract by the
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 19.12.2018. it is aid that since the entire project has got
environmental clearance from the Central Government and the State Board, therefore, small
companies working under the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited do not require to take further
consent from the State Board under Section 21 of the Act.

5. It is further said that the complainant did not conduct any such exercise, which is
indicative of the fact that applicants have ceased to be Directors of the company w.e.f. 15.03.2014
and 20.09.2016 respectively, i.e. much before the establishment of the aforesaid project at Panki,
Kanpur, but they have been implicated as co-accused because only being Directors of the company.
From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that opposite party no.2 without verifying the fact pertaining to
the role and responsibility of the Directors of the company and without any preliminary
investigation to the fact that who is In-charge and responsible on behalf of the company in the
ongoing project, falsely implicated the applicants in the case. Further, opposite party no.2 in its
Annexure-3 submitted along with the complaint, has admitted that he did not ascertain the fact that
whether applicants were In-charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. However, the Magistrate without taking into consideration the aforesaid
facts, summoned the applicants.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, assisted by Sri Mohit Ashok and Ms. Tripti, learned
counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants no.1 and 2 in Application U/s 482 No.9058
of 2022 had ceased to be Directors of the Company w.e.f. 15.3.2014 and 20.9.2016 respectively
and in fact, much before establishment of the said project at Panki, Kanpur. Form No.32 and Form
No.DIR 12 issued in pursuance of Sections 303(2), 264(2) or 266(1)(a) and 266(1)(b)(i) of the
Companies Act, 1956 would clearly indicate and verify the said fact. He has also invited attention
of the Court towards the rejoinder affidavit, particularly Annexure-RA-1. It has been further
submitted that in the complaint, there is no allegation to the effect that applicants were having dayto-day control over the company at the relevant time or they discharged their duty in the official
capacity. It has been submitted that in such scenario, the entire complaint against the applicants is
vitiated.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of the Court towards the
complaint filed by the Board, wherein it is mentioned that applicants are the Directors of opposite
party no.3 and in-charge as well as responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of
opposite party no.3, who willfully operates its plant and conduct its business. The Board has not
exercised due diligence as to what is the duty of the applicants and in what manner they committed
the offence. Learned counsel for the applicants by placing reliance upon paragraphs 41 and 45 of
the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunita Palita and others Vs. Panchami
Stone Quarry (2022) 10 SCC 152 has submitted that merely on the basis of holding a designation
or office in a company would be a travesty of justice to drag Directors.

8. In rebuttal, Sri Ahok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution
Control Board (opposite party no.2) has submitted that in the compliant, the applicants have been
arrayed as Directors of the company, M/s Simplex Infrastructure Limited and as the offence is
being committed by the aforesaid company and no consent as provided under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (Hereinafter referred as "Water Act") and The Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (Hereinafter referred as "Air Act") has been obtained, as
such the environmental norms being not followed, the applicants being vicariously liable for the
offence, are liable to be prosecuted. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section
25 of the Water Act, M/s Simplex Infrastructure Limited is covered under the word used "Person"
and further under Section 21 of the Air Act also the same word has been used and admittedly the
construction work is being performed by M/s Simplex Infrastructure Limited, it hardly matters that
it is operating under any agreement. In fact, it is operating the Industrial Plant as defined under
Section 2(k) of the Air Act.

9. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that the complainant has fully
ascertained before filing the complaint by making inquiry online on the website of Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, Government of India in respect of the industry of the applicants and further the
applicants are in-charge of the company, the consent being policy of the concerned industry. He has
further submitted that the offence is pertaining to the year 2020 and at the time of filing of the
complaint through the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, relevant papers were obtained,
which indicate that applicants were Directors of the Company at the relevant time. He has
submitted that the inspection report is also pertaining to the same year and if the website indicates
that applicants were Directors, then the Board has rightly impleaded them. It has been further
4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
843
submitted that if it is a disputed question of fact, the same can be decided by the trial court and it
cannot be scanned here.

10. Counsel for opposite party no.2 by relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
rendered in the cases of U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and
another (2009) 2 SCC 147 (Paras 36 and 37), Application U/s 482 No.67 of 2023, Nagarajan
Krishna Murthy Dire. Geo/Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 27.1.2023, and
Criminal Misc. Case No.1295 of 2006, S.P. Rastogi vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on
9.7.2009, has submitted that in the case of S.P. Rastogi (supra), it is held that in case individual
action of any person is not involved and is not in question, but in fact it is the Board of Directors,
who are responsible for running of the Mill, they must be held responsible for running the Mill
without any treatment plant. It cannot be said that one or two of the Board of Directors were not
having any knowledge of the aforesaid fact or that they have nothing to do with the treatment plant
but in fact they were duty bound as contemplated under the Act to setup a treatment plant, which
they did not do and proceeded with the manufacturing deliberately and intentionally violating the
provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. On the strength of the judgment passed in the case of
S.P. Rastogi (supra), learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the entire Board is
responsible and all these questions can be decided by the trial court as in Applications filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., evidences cannot be weighed here, and this Court cannot do mini trial.

11. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that the case of Sunita Palita
(supra) is pertaining to the Negotiable Instrument Act, therefore, the said judgement is not
applicable to the present case and reliance placed by the counsel for the applicants is misconceived.
He has further submitted that present case is pertaining to pollution and air and there is specific
violation of the Act, therefore, the offence is made out against the applicants and there is no
illegality or infirmity in the summons issued by the trial court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Palita (supra) has observed that Director
of a company, who was in-charge or responsible for conduct of the business of the company at the
relevant time, will be liable. The subject matter of the said judgement is pertaining to Sections 141
and 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, whereas in the present case, there is violation of the Air Act
and each and every Director is responsible in case of violation of the Act. Therefore, the case of
Suita Palita (supra) is not applicable to the present case.

14. The matter pertaining to water pollution has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi (supra), in which it has been held that in the case
of Moham Meakins's case there is observation that where an offence under the Act has been
committed by a company every person who was in charge of and was responsible to the company
for the conduct of the business of the company is also made guilty of the offence by the statutory
creation. Any director, manager or other officer of the company, who has consented to or connived
in the commission of the said offence, is made liable for the punishment of the offence. Paragraphs
36 and 37 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted below:-
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "36. It is useful to refer the facts and other details stated in the complaint as noted by this
Court. Thomas, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in paras 10 and 11 observed thus:-

 "10. ... ... ... In the complaint filed by the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
the Company (M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd.) has been arrayed as the first accused and the other
persons who were arrayed as Accused 2 to 10 were described as the Directors of the said
Company. The 11th person arrayed in the complaint as accused is described as the Manager of the
Company. The averments in the complaint show that the Distillery Unit of the Company at
Daliganj, Lucknow, has been discharging noxious trade effluents into River Gomti and causing
continuous pollution of the river. It was further averred in the complaint that on 19-9-1982,
samples of trade effluents were collected by the officers empowered in this behalf, from the drain
"just outside the plant inside the factory", and from the irrigation plant out of which the effluents
were pumped into the river.

 When the samples were analysed in the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Lucknow,
it was revealed that the quality of effluents was beyond the standard laid down for the purpose.
Therefore, it is alleged that the Company has violated Section 24 of the Act* and thereby the
Company is guilty of the offence under Section 43 of the Act.

 11. Where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company every person who
was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the
company is also made guilty of the offence by the statutory creation. Any director, manager or
other officer of the company, who has consented to or connived in the commission of the said
offence, is made liable for the punishment of the offence."

 This Court has also noted further allegations in the complaint against Managers or
Directors of the Company which are as under:-

 "12. In the above context what is to be looked at during the stage of issuing process is
whether there are allegations in the complaint by which the Managers or Directors of the Company
can also be proceeded against, when the Company is alleged to be guilty of the offence. Para 12 of
the complaint reads thus:

 "That the accused persons from 2 to 11 are Directors/ Managers/ Partners of M/s Mohan
Meakins Distillery, Daliganj, Lucknow, as mentioned in this complaint are responsible for
constructing the proper works and plant for the treatment of their highly polluting trade effluent so
as to conform to the standard laid down by the Board. Aforesaid accused persons are deliberately
avoiding to abide by the provisions of Sections 24 and 26 of the aforesaid Act which are punishable
respectively under Sections 43 and 44 of the aforesaid Act, for which not only the Company but its
Directors, Managers, Secretary and all other responsible officers of the accused Company,
responsible for the conduct of its business are also liable in accordance with the provision of
Section 47 of the Act."
4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
845
 The appellant has further stated in para 23 of the complaint that "the Chairman,
Managing Directors and Directors of the Company are the persons responsible for the act and
therefore, they are liable to be proceeded against according to the law".

 Taking note of the averments in the complaint against the Directors, Managers and the
ingredients of Section 47 of the Act, this Court declined to accept the reasoning of the High Court
and Sessions Court for quashing the complaint thereby set aside both the orders and directed the
trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law"

15. In the case of R.P. Rastogi (supra), this Court has observed that it cannot be said that
one or two of the Board of Directors were not having any knowledge of the aforesaid fact or that
they have nothing to do with the treatment plant but in fact they were duty bound as contemplated
under the Act to set up a treatment plant, which they did not do. Relevant portion of the judgement
is extracted herein below:-

 "The question which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner and others
who constitute the Board of Directors of the company, which is apparent from the minutes of the
meeting of the Board of Directors appended along with the petition as contained in annexure no.9,
in which Shri Sudhir Seth, Shri R.S. Sharma, Shri S.P. Rastogi and Smt. Krishna Seth have been
shown as Directors of the company. The Mill was set up through the company. The company
operates and functions through the Board of Directors and which function is to be discharged by
an Individual Director and which function is to be discharged by all the Directors collectively is to
be taken into consideration. The obtaining of consent is not individual action and the Board of
Directors were duty bound to take action in this regard. The Mill was set up and was run without
any consent order and the Board of Directors persistently knew that they are running the Mill
without any consent order and without setting up any treatment plant. It was also in their
knowledge that they have applied for grant of consent and that their application has also been
rejected. Whether the running of the Mill without any consent order can-be termed to be liability of
any one individual or the liability of the entire Board of Directors is a question to be considered in
this case. The Mill being run without treatment plant cannot be allowed to run is in the knowledge
of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is supposed to close the industry t once as and
when the consent has been refused or they should apply afresh in the changed circumstances for
grant of consent. The Inspection report dated 01.01.1986 goes to indicate that they were running
the Mill without; any consent order and without any treatment plant being set up.

 For convenience provisions of Section 47 of the Act are quoted below:

 "Section 47-Offence by Companies.

 (1) Where the offence under this Act has been committed by a Company, every person
who at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company
for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly:
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to
any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Section 1 where an offence under this Act
has been committed by a Company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager,
Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly."

 In Sub-Section (1) of Section 47 of the Act the words 'every person who at the time the
offence was committed, was In-charge' relates to the functions of the Board of Directors
collectively. The Parliament has used the words with certain caution and the harmonious
construction has to be adopted for interpreting the aforesaid Section. This Section deals with two
situations, one is where any person was in-charge of a particular act and was also responsible to
the company for the conduct of the business he would be responsible but in case the function has to
be performed by the entire Board of Directors, then the Board of Directors are to be presumed to
be the persons who were in-charge and were responsible to the company at the time when the
offence was committed.

 In this case the individual action of any person is not involved and is not in question but
in fact it is the Board of Directors, who are responsible for the running of the Mill. They must be
held responsible for running the Mill without any treatment plant. It cannot be said that one or two
of the board of Directors were not having any knowledge of the aforesaid fact or that they have
nothing to do with the treatment plant but in fact they were duty bound as contemplated under the
Act to set up a treatment plant, which they did not do arid proceeded with the manufacturing
deliberately and Intentionally violating the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act."

16. Similar question has been cropped up in the case of Nagarajan Krishna Murthy (supra)
and this Court considering the entire facts and circumstances held as under:-

 "15. Since public notice was issued to all the industries emanating air pollution situated
in 16 cities of U.P. and the applicant's company is also bound to follow the directions issued by the
Board. But the Company failed to perform the directions issued by the Board. Thus in my
considered opinion, since a public notice was issued by the Board so it is the bounden duty of the
applicant's Company and its director to comply such directions which was issued by the Board.

 16. Keeping in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board
vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi (supra) and considering the provision of Section 40 of the Act,
1981 director of the company could not be absolved from the liability. Although in this complaint,
project manager in-charge of the construction work, who was present at the site at the time of
inspection was also responsible but no prosecution was launched by Board against him.
4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
847
 17. So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the
material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be
seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful
Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the
provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said
purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial
court.

 18. So far as the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court is
concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether
the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial
court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the
material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Every aspect is touched by learned
trial court. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly legal and there is no occasion to
quash the same."

17. An assertion has been made in the complaint against the applicants that they are
Directors of the company and in-charge as well as responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day
business of the company, who willfully operate its plant and conduct its business is required to
comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, so its liabilities under the Act in accordance with
provisions of Section 40 of the Act with respect to that they have exercised all due diligence to
prevent the contravention of the provision of the Act and are required to abide the mandatory
provisions under the Act.

18. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 40 of the Act provide that notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company
and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to aby neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the
company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

19. The complaint postulates allegation of negligence against the applicants, who were
directors of the company, and they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, but
they had denied their day-to-day affairs of the company as well as their discharge of function on the
date of incident. These are the question of facts, which cannot be scanned here. The applicants may
take their defence before the trial court, but certainly this Court cannot go into the merit of the case.

20. After discussing the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, it is not out of place to mention
here that the offence is pertaining to the year 2020 and at the time of filling the complaint on the
website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, the applicants were Directors of the
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