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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint and the order issuing summons could be quashed where the allegations against the bank officials did not disclose personal criminal liability and the dispute was essentially civil in nature.
Analysis: Criminal liability of a Chairman, Managing Director, or other office-bearer of a company or bank cannot be fastened merely because of their position. Vicarious liability in criminal law arises only where the statute expressly so provides or where specific acts, coupled with criminal intent, are attributed to the individual. The power to issue summons is a serious judicial function, and the Magistrate must apply mind to whether the complaint, taken at face value, discloses the basic ingredients of the alleged offences and whether the accused is actually required to face trial. On the facts, the complaint did not lay the requisite foundation for personal criminal liability against the petitioners, and the controversy was treated as a civil dispute.
Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order were not sustainable, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability cannot be presumed from office alone and summons may issue only when the complaint discloses, on a proper application of mind, a prima facie offence and the statutory or factual basis for personal liability.