Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1067 - HC - Indian LawsNon-grant of sanctioned CC Facility - Breach of trust - Commitment of fraud - prosecution under vicarious liability - commission of offences punishable under Section 409, 420 RPC - whether a Chairman/Director of a company, or say a bank, can be vicariously liable for a criminal offence attributed to the company/bank? - HELD THAT:- The issue whether a Chairman/Director of a company, or say a bank, can be vicariously liable for a criminal offence attributed to the company/bank, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI [2015 (9) TMI 1339 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. The Magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. In the present case, the Trial Court has failed to pose to himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Chairman/Managing Director and Branch Manager would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. The Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. In the present case, the important aspects have not been followed by the Trial Court while entertaining the complaint and issuing summons to petitioners. The complaint filed by respondents does not withstand the touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court as discussed above and is, at the most, a civil dispute. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice, instant petition requires to be allowed - petition allowed.
|