Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Company Director Due to Absence of Company as Accused

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In the judgment of Mr. Raj Sahai Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr., the Calcutta High Court addressed the critical legal issue of corporate criminal liability. Specifically, the Court examined whether a director of a company can be held criminally liable in the absence of the company being named as an accused in the proceedings.

Raj Sahai, a retired Army Officer and director of Duomo Distribution Private Limited, was accused under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, for allegedly possessing and storing unregistered and non-duty paid foreign liquor. The prosecution argued that these acts were in violation of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. Sahai contended that the seized liquor was not meant for sale but for marketing and promotion, and thus not subject to registration or excise duty.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) evaluated the evidence, including import documents and invoices marked "Samples Not for Sale." The Court noted the absence of the company, Duomo Distribution Pvt. Ltd., as an accused in the case. Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Dayle De’ Souza Vs Government of India, the Court underscored that corporate entities must be party to proceedings for directors or officers to be vicariously liable.

"The prosecution has not impleaded the company in this instant case... initiation of proceedings and its continuation is bad in law."

The judgment primarily hinges on the principle of corporate criminal liability and the concept of vicarious liability in criminal law. It cites Section 46B of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, which requires the company to be implicated in the offence for its directors or officers to be held liable.

The Court allowed the CRR 100 of 2020, quashing the proceedings against Raj Sahai due to the absence of Duomo Distribution Pvt. Ltd. as an accused party in the case. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of implicating the corporate entity in cases of corporate wrongdoing.

Date of Decision: 02.02.2024

Mr. Raj Sahai Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News