Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, examined the legality of criminal summons issued against M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited and several of its senior functionaries including the Chairman and Managing Director, Whole-time Directors, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Executive Vice Presidents heading different divisions, and Independent Directors, all of whom had been summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in a complaint filed by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, alleging violation of statutory provisions relating to consent and emission norms, the case arising out of a project awarded in 2018 to Larsen & Toubro for execution of works in the Khurja–Pilkhani Section of the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor (CP-303), for which a batching plant had been set up at Ghaziabad to facilitate construction activities, and where the company asserted that all statutory permissions under both the Air Act and the Water Act had been duly obtained, the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board being valid from 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2022, during which period an inspection was allegedly conducted by the Board on 14.12.2020, and yet a criminal complaint was later filed resulting in issuance of summons in 2022 against not only the company but also its top-level management and independent directors, leading to the present challenge before the High Court on the ground that the Magistrate had acted mechanically without appreciating the documentary record and without recording legally sustainable reasons.

Arguments (Applicants):

On behalf of the applicants, it was strongly contended that the entire prosecution was founded on incorrect assumptions and procedural improprieties, firstly, that the mandatory consent under Sections 21 and 22 of the Air Act had in fact been granted and was subsisting at the time of inspection, which clearly disproved the core allegation that the unit was being operated without consent, secondly, that the inspection report claimed by the Pollution Control Board was neither prepared on the spot nor served upon the company, and was allegedly written later, casting serious doubt on its authenticity and procedural fairness, thirdly, that even for another batching plant set up at Noida for a similar project, the inspection on the same date was also followed by a report prepared later, indicating a pattern of post-facto documentation rather than contemporaneous regulatory supervision, fourthly, that the batching plant at Ghaziabad had long been dismantled and the premises vacated, and the project itself stood completed by 2024, thereby making the continuation of criminal proceedings not only unnecessary but also oppressive, fifthly, that the senior management and independent directors were being prosecuted without any specific allegations of their direct involvement, knowledge, or consent, contrary to settled principles governing vicarious liability under environmental and corporate criminal law, sixthly, that the summoning order of the Magistrate merely stated that documents had been perused but failed to indicate which documents were considered and how the statutory ingredients of the offence were made out, and lastly, that the applicants had only recently become aware of the criminal proceedings, and therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order and consequential proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

Arguments (Pollution Control Board / Respondent):

The Pollution Control Board defended the prosecution by asserting that during inspection on 14.12.2020, violations were noticed at the batching plant which constituted breach of statutory conditions, and that under Section 37 of the Air Act, penalties are prescribed for operating without valid consent, exceeding emission standards, or disobeying lawful directions issued under Section 31A, and therefore once violations were observed, prosecution was justified, the Board further maintaining that responsibility for environmental compliance lies not merely with site-level operators but also with company leadership who are entrusted with ensuring adherence to regulatory obligations, and that environmental offences affect public health and ecological balance and therefore should not be lightly interfered with at the threshold, it being argued that the Magistrate had taken cognizance based on the complaint and supporting materials and that the High Court should not substitute its own assessment of facts at the stage of summoning, as detailed evidence could only be examined during trial, and that quashing proceedings at this stage would frustrate statutory enforcement mechanisms meant to deter industrial pollution;

Judgment:

The High Court, after examining the material on record, focused its analysis not on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the applicants but on the legality of the summoning process itself, and held that summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious judicial act which requires application of mind to the facts and documents placed before the court, and cannot be reduced to a routine formality, Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the Magistrate had categorically recorded in the summoning order that the unit was being run without prior approval or consent from the Pollution Control Board, which was factually incorrect in view of the consent granted for the period from 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2022, during which the inspection had admittedly taken place, and this factual error went to the very root of the prosecution because lack of consent was treated as the foundational basis for issuing summons, the Court observing that a bare perusal of the consent letter itself demolished the premise adopted by the Magistrate, and yet no discussion or reasoning was recorded regarding the existence, scope, or validity of the consent, nor was there any analysis of whether the alleged violations, if any, were of such nature as to attract penal consequences under Section 37, the Court further observed that merely stating that documents were seen is not equivalent to judicial application of mind, as a Magistrate must indicate at least briefly how the statutory ingredients of the offence are satisfied, particularly when criminal liability of multiple senior corporate officers is sought to be invoked, the Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used as a tool of harassment by mechanically summoning high-ranking officials without specific material showing their role or responsibility, and that environmental protection, though of paramount importance, must still operate within the framework of procedural fairness and legal accountability, the Court therefore concluded that the summoning order was unsustainable in law as it was based on incorrect factual assumptions and absence of reasoned satisfaction, and accordingly set aside the summoning order and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration, directing that a new order be passed after proper appreciation of all documents and after recording clear reasons showing application of mind, thus restoring procedural discipline without foreclosing the statutory authority’s right to proceed in accordance with law if a prima facie case is truly made out.