TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a criminal complaint against a managing director can be sustained in the absence of specific averments constituting vicarious liability; (ii) whether proceedings could continue when the company, against whom the allegations were principally made, was not arraigned as an accused.
Issue (i): whether a criminal complaint against a managing director can be sustained in the absence of specific averments constituting vicarious liability.
Analysis: A complaint invoking criminal liability against an officer of a company must contain clear and specific allegations showing the basis on which personal liability is sought to be fastened. Where the complaint only contains vague assertions and does not set out facts indicating the officer's role in the alleged offence, the Magistrate ought not to issue process mechanically. The principle applies with greater force where the offence complained of is not one that automatically attracts vicarious liability.
Conclusion: The complaint did not contain sufficient specific averments to sustain personal criminal liability against the managing director, and this issue was answered in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether proceedings could continue when the company, against whom the allegations were principally made, was not arraigned as an accused.
Analysis: The allegations in substance were directed against the company, yet the company was not made an accused. In such a situation, proceedings against the officer alone, based on the same allegations, could not be maintained. The absence of the company as a co-accused rendered the prosecution legally vulnerable and justified interference in quashing jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The proceedings were unsustainable in the absence of the company as an accused, and this issue was also decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where allegations are substantially against a company, criminal proceedings against its officer require specific averments showing personal liability, and the company must ordinarily be arraigned as an accused for the prosecution to be maintainable.
TaxTMI 
