Sanjay Dutt & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: High Court failed to examine whether the complaint, even if taken at face value, established the personal liability of the directors under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. Supreme Court ruled that before taking cognizance of such complaints, courts must carefully apply their minds to ensure that a prima facie case exists against the accused individuals.
Held: High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellants herein invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing of complaint no. 41 of 2022 lodged by the Range Forest Officer for the alleged offence under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short “the Act, 1900”) punishable under Section 19 of the Act, 1900. The allegations in the complaint pertained to the uprooting of trees using heavy machinery. However, the Supreme Court observed that there were no direct accusations against the appellants regarding their personal involvement in the alleged acts. Instead, the persons actually present at the site, responsible for tree felling, were not named as accused. Moreover, the company, which was granted the necessary license for land development, was also not made a party to the complaint. The Court found this approach flawed, stating that liability cannot be presumed merely based on the corporate hierarchy. The bench reiterated that while a company may be liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors was not automatic. For vicarious liability to apply, two conditions must be met: (1) the company itself must be liable for the offence, and (2) the director must have played a direct and significant role in the wrongful act. It was the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there was no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who had perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company could be made an accused, if the statute provided for such liability and if there was sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there was no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question. When a complainant intended to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of a company, it was essential to make requisite allegations to constitute the vicarious liability. When jurisdiction was exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint of the present nature. The High Court failed to pose unto itself the correct question i.e., as to whether the complaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety would lead to the conclusion that appellants herein were personally liable for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1900 made punishable under Section 19 of the Act, 1900. 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.
