Supreme Court judgment related to quashing of complaint. The complaint alleged an offense under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, specifically for uprooting trees in a restricted area. The court examined whether the complaint adequately demonstrated that the individual appellants were personally liable for the alleged offense, noting that vicarious liability is not automatically imputed to directors or officers of a company unless specifically provided by statute or supported by concrete allegations of personal involvement. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the allegations against the appellants to be vague and insufficient, quashing the complaint and order. The court clarified that action could still be taken against the company if it breached its license conditions.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, Section 4, 19 – Quashing of complaint – Vicarious liability – Appellant no.1 is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of a company and the appellant no.2 is at the relevant point of time was the General Manager and is currently the Assistant Vice President of company and the appellant no.3 is at the relevant point of time was the erstwhile employee/Senior Manager of the company – Held that having regard to the Scheme of the Act, 1900, there is no vicarious liability that can be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers of the company – It is the individual liability or the act that would make the person concerned liable for being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 19 of the Act, 1900 – Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is difficult to take the view that the appellants herein are responsible for the alleged offence – There are no allegations worth the name in the complaint that the three appellants are directly responsible for uprooting of the trees with the aid of Bulldozers or JCB machines or causing damage to the environment – The persons who were actually found at the site felling the trees have not been arrayed as accused in the complaint – Although the license / necessary permission for development of the land in the specified area had been granted in favour of the company, yet for the reasons best known to the complainant the company has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint – Held that no case could be said to have been made out for putting the three appellants to trial for the alleged offence – The Court concerned could not have issued process for the alleged offence – Impugned complaint and order taking cognizance of the said complaint is hereby quashed – Clarify that if it is the case of the department that the company has committed any breach or violation of any of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of license, then it is always open for authority concerned to proceed against the company for violation of such terms and conditions.
(Para 10 to 20)
(B) Offence by company – Vicarious liability an officer of a company – It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so – Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent – The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable – For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question.
(Para 13)
Sanjay Dutt V. State Of Haryana
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 34: (DoJ 02-01-2025)
