Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1675 - SUPREME COURTLiability of General Manager - Vicarious Liability or not - Negligence on the part of Hotel or sheer negligence of the injured who walked out to the terrace for smoking - prosecution of offences Under Sections 336 and 338 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The liability of the Directors/the controlling authorities of company, in a corporate criminal liability is elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal [2015 (9) TMI 1339 - SUPREME COURT]. In the aforesaid case, while considering the circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an Accused person, this Court has held, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. At the same time it is observed that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the Statute specifically provides for. It is further held by this Court, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of the company can be made an Accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Having perused the directions issued permitting the Accused to appear through an advocate, such direction is within the power of the High Court in exercise of inherent powers conferred Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Having regard to nature of directions issued by the High Court, as referred above, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the same, in these appeals. Appeal disposed off.
|