KAMALKISHOR SHRIGOPAL TAPARIA v. INDIA ENER GEN PRIVATE LIMITED
Discusses principles of vicarious liability, interpretation of penal statutes, and the burden of proof in criminal proceedings.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 223
Decision Date: 13-02-2025
List of Laws
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; General Principles of Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment discusses Section 482 CrPC, under which the Appellant filed petitions in the High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed these petitions. The Supreme Court then considered the appeals against the High Court's decision.
- The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The judgment extensively discusses Section 138 NI Act, under which criminal proceedings were initiated against the Appellant for dishonor of cheques. It also discusses Section 141 NI Act, concerning vicarious liability of directors. The court refers to previous judgments, including *National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another*, to emphasize that Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability and must be strictly construed. The court notes that a mere designation as a director is insufficient to establish liability under Section 138 read with Section 141. Specific allegations demonstrating the director's active involvement are required. The court also cites *Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra*, holding that to attract liability under Section 141, the accused must have been actively in-charge of the company's business at the relevant time. The court concludes that the Appellant, being a non-executive director with no active involvement, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of vicarious liability, particularly in the context of directors of a company. It emphasizes that vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NI Act cannot be automatically imposed on all directors. The judgment highlights the importance of specific averments and evidence demonstrating a director's active involvement in the company's affairs for fastening criminal liability. It also emphasizes that penal provisions creating vicarious liability must be strictly construed.
🔒 For Members Only