TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 421, 422, 427 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Valsad, being Criminal Case No. 1095 of 1998 against one Summex Chemicals Limited and six others, wherein present applicant has been arraigned as accused no. 6. It is alleged that the complainant was working as Deputy Manager in Gujarat Industrial Capital Investment Corporation Limited. That accused nos. 2 to 7 are the directors of accused no. 1 company. That accused no. 1 company had applied to the complainant-Corporation for a loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retired from the said firm and now confined to chamber practice being associated with Dhruve Liladhar and Company. He was appointed on the legal panel of Summex Chemicals Limited and, thereafter, he was only made a director of the said company as non-executive/independent director. It is also contended that he had no decision making powers and was not concerned with the day-to-day working of the said company. According to him, he was not even involved in the loan transaction with the complainant-Corporation and he has not signed any documents pertaining to said loans. According to him, there is no offence made out against him and no specific role has been ascribed to him in the complaint. On these grounds, the applicant has prayed to set as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the applicant has not come with clean hands and though order has been passed by learned trial Court regarding framing of charge in the year 2013, false statement has been made in this application that nothing has transpired till 2016. While referring to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad dated 10.12.2013, she has submitted that after hearing both the sides, learned trial Court has prima facie found material for framing of the charge and this fact has not been narrated by the present applicant. She, therefore, prayed to dismiss present application. 7. Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 has submitted that cognizance has been taken by the trial Court and there is specific allegation made against the presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made by accused no. 7 and as per the loan agreement entered into between the complainant-Corporation and accused no. 1-company on 28th June 2015, properties, machineries etc. were required to be hypothecated with the complainant-Corporation and, accordingly, they were hypothecated. That for the purpose of availing loan on behalf of accused no. 1-company, a certificate dated 25th July 1995 was given by Chartered Accountant. That relying on the said certificate, the Corporation disbursed Rs. 72.5 Lacs on 4.8.1995. It is alleged that the goods which were hypothecated to the Corporation have been removed and shifted to unknown place or they have been sold. It is also clear that the applicant herein is a Solicitor by profession and was part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. 43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Apex Court has observed as under:- "16. Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefor, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence. ....... 19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the company, even if appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committ....