Criminal liability for fabricated evidence in arbitration requires specific personal involvement; company proceedings survived, chairman's did not.
A fabricated commissioning report allegedly used in arbitration could found a prima facie case under Sections 192 and 199 of the IPC if it was capable of influencing the tribunal on a material point, and the later setting aside of the award did not erase the alleged offence. The complaint was therefore sustained against the company. By contrast, criminal liability could not be fastened on the chairman without specific averments of personal participation, supervision, or pre-arranged common intention, because Sections 192 and 199 do not create vicarious liability by status alone and Section 34 requires prima facie prior concert; the proceedings against the chairman were quashed.
Issues: (i) whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the company for offences under Sections 192 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) whether the complaint disclosed the necessary specific averments and common intention to fasten liability on the chairman under Sections 192, 199 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (i): whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the company for offences under Sections 192 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The complaint alleged that a fabricated commissioning report was tendered in arbitration on behalf of the company to support its written statement. The ingredients of Sections 192 and 199 were examined, and the Court found that the document, if fabricated and used in the arbitral proceedings, could influence the tribunal on a material point. The existence of a later setting aside of the award did not negate the alleged offences, because the offences, if made out, were complete independently of the final award.
Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the company, and quashing was not warranted.
Issue (ii): whether the complaint disclosed the necessary specific averments and common intention to fasten liability on the chairman under Sections 192, 199 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: Liability for offences under Sections 192 and 199 could not be imposed on a company officer merely by reason of office or status, because vicarious liability is not inherent in those provisions. The complaint contained no specific allegation that the chairman personally participated in the arbitration, supervised the alleged interpolation, or acted pursuant to a pre-arranged plan. For Section 34 to apply, the complaint had to prima facie show prior concert and participation in the act constituting the offence, which was absent.
Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against the chairman, and the proceedings against him were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The complaint was sustained against the company but quashed against the chairman, resulting in partial interference with the High Court order.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any statutory provision creating vicarious liability, criminal liability of a company officer must rest on specific averments of personal role or participation, and Section 34 applies only where the complaint prima facie shows a pre-arranged common intention and participation in the commission of the offence.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
