JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

Heard Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi and Mr. Subhash Gulati, learned counsels for the applicant, learned AGA and Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for U.P. Pollution Control Board and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 102 of 2021 "U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s L&T Geo Structure through its Directors" pending in the Court of Learned Special Judicial Magistrate Pollution/CBI (Water Air Pollution Control Lucknow) Lucknow, as well as the impugned summoning order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in the above-mentioned Complaint Case No. 102 of 2021, whereby the Petitioner has been summoned as an accused for commission of offence under sections 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (herein referred to as "the Act, 1981").

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during pendency of the present proceedings, Subbaiya Kanappan, Director of L&T Geo Structure Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Company') was arraigned as a co-accused in the matter, passed away on 25.4.2020. So the complaint case against him stands abated.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complaint which has been filed by the respondents, does not attribute any specific role. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused merely because he is one of the Directors of the Company. It is an admitted fact that at the time of inspection at the site of the project, only Mr. Ankur was present. It is further submitted that a Project Manager for M/s Panki Thermal Power Plant was appointed by the Company and power of attorney was executed in favour of Praveen Pratap Singh. In fact, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) was the main contractor which had been awarded the contract by UPRVUNL for the entire project of establishing the 1x660 MW Units at Panki on EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) basis. Thereafter, the BHEL had engaged the services of applicant's Company for carrying out the specialized activity of Pot Pilling and Pedestal work for their Project. It is further submitted that the responsibility of seeking requisite permission from the concerned Board i.e. UPPCB under section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and other statutory compliances like installment of PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom Camera) and providing Dust Control Audit on the portal of Respondent/Complainant's Board was primarily vested with UPRVUNL being the Project proponent or BHEL being the Main Contractor.

5. It is further submitted that no communication/letter was ever sent to the Company or to its Directors/officials including the Project Manager posted at the Panki Plant for ensuring any statutory compliances in relation to the said specialized works. It is also submitted that being the Director of the Company, the applicant was neither posted at the Project site nor has participated in the day-to-day activities carried out by the Company at the Project site and, therefore, he cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence allegedly committed by the Company. The role of the applicant in the capacity of a Director has always been at a policy-making level and governance only. Most of the executive powers to run the company's business and visit performance of diffe