2. Introduction
If a person is involved in a crime, he may commit a crime for
the actions of another. For example, the driver of a fleeing car
is guilty of armed robbery at a store, even if the driver
committed the entire robbery without leaving the car. The
obligations under the criminal law make it possible for a
person to be convicted of a crime. The perpetrator is not
innocent and is believed to be responsible for the crime as
well. The Law sometimes focuses on the relationship between
the perpetrator and the performer of physical behavior; It
attributes the actions of the last to the previous. Initially, it
should be emphasized that this duty in criminal law is not a
rule but an exception. The concept of controversy is primarily
a principle of citizenship law.
3. Indian Perspective
The IPC departed from the norm in a few cases
by the respondent's rule. [vi] In such cases, the
Master is liable under various sections of the IPC
for the acts committed by his agents or servants.
Section 149 sets out legal responsibilities. It
states that a lawsuit against a common object
was committed by an unlawful member, or that
the offense may have been committed in a
lawsuit. That person, at the time of the crime,
will be guilty of a crime committed by a member
4. • Section 154 holds owners or occupiers of land, or persons having or
claiming an interest in land, criminally liable for intentional failure of their
servants or managers in giving information to the public authorities, or in
taking adequate measures to stop the occurrence of an unlawful assembly
or riot on their land. The liability on the owners or occupiers of land has
been fixed on the assumption that such persons, by virtue of their position
as land-holders, possess the power of controlling and regulating such type
of gatherings on their property, and to disperse if the object of such
gatherings becomes illegal.
• Section 155 fixes vicarious liability on the owners or occupiers of land or
persons claiming interest in land, for the acts or omissions of their
managers or agents, if a riot takes place or an unlawful assembly is held in
the interest of such class of persons.
• Section 156 imposes personal liability on the managers or the agents of
such owners or occupiers of property on whose land a riot or an unlawful
assembly is committed. Section 268 and 269 explicitly deals with public
nuisance. Under this section a master is made vicariously liable for the
public nuisance committed by servant. Section 499 makes a master
vicariously liable for publication of a libel by his servant. Defamation is an
offence under this section.
5. Vicarious liability under Special
Statutes
Laws specializing in Pakistan's doctrine of
accountability, such as the Indian Defense Act of
1962; Indian Army Act 1911; The Prevention of
Food adulteration Act of 1954; It is often used
under the Drug Act 1940. Violation of the rules and
regulations contained in the above rules; His agent
or employee committed such an act while hiring. In
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the
appellant, who was an employee, was convicted
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954
for the act of the master in selling adulterated oil.
6. Liability of Master
• An innocent master is not liable for a felony under the
provisions of clause 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order
1941 for slaves.
• Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State of Madras
In this case, it was held that the licensed victualler was liable
to be convicted although he had no knowledge of the act of
his servant. In dealings with case, Blackburn J observed ‘if we
hold that there must be a personal knowledge in the licensed
person, we would make the enactment of no effect.’ The
appeal was allowed in part, and while the conviction and
sentence imposed on appellant on the first charge in both the
cases were quashed, the conviction and sentence on the third
charge in the second case were affirmed
7. Liability of Corporations for Criminal
Wrongs
Earlier, the corporation denied any wrongdoing, but rejected this view. As
tested by the standards of duty to commit a crime, its perpetrator's human
representatives support the opposite extremism that a corporation is guilty of
any crime if their conduct is at their disposal. In determining whether this
dispute is fair, the existing issue arises as to whether or not the existing
existing legal concepts allow the assessment of such extremist liability.
Second, criminal liability can be defined. The corporation can only act through
its agents. Since the shareholders are the ones who are punished when the
corporation is convicted, the corporate criminal liability ensures responsibility
for the actions of the shareholders' responsible persons. Corporate criminal
responsibility was clear for the physical activities of agents if the criminal
intent was not important. The distinction between physical action and the
psychological state of the agent should clearly prove that it is not a logical
barrier to the fulfillment of spiritual responsibilities. "But instead of treating
the problem as a serious responsibility, The courts have dealt with the
theoretical difficulties of criminalizing corporations. Rape; He reiterated that
he could not commit crimes such as rape and murder. But now the courts are
in a position to admit that corporations are guilty of criminal offenses.
8. i. HL Bolton (Engineering) Co. Ltd. v. T.J. Graham & Sons Ltd.
A company may in many ways be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what
it does. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre.Some of
the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than hands to do the work and
cannot be said to represent the mind or will. Others are directors and managers who represent the directing
mind and will of the company, and control what it does. The state of mind of these managers is the state of
mind of the company and is treated by the law as such.
ii. State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate transport Co (P) Ltd.
In this case, there was an agreement that bus would be transferred in the name of the complainant, and would
be run by the company on the hire purchase agreement till the satisfaction of the advance money. But the bus
was not transferred to the complainant, as per the agreement. Consequently, the complainant moved to the
trial magistrate who booked the company under sections 403, 406 and 420, for violating the terms and
conditions of agreement. The company preferred a revision before the Sessions Court to quash the charge
against the company. The Session’s Judge was of the view that since a corporate body acts only through its
agents or servants, the mens rea of such agents or servants can’t be attributed to the company, and he referred
it to High Court for quashing charges. Ned so as to make While accepting the reference and quashing the
charge, the Court sent back the case for trial in accordance with law. The court said that the scope within which
criminal proceedings can be brought against institutions which have become so prominent a feature of
everyday affairs’ ought to be widened so as to make corporate bodies indictable for offences flowing from the
acts or omissions of their human agents. Ordinarily, a corporate body like a company acts through its managing
directors or board of directors or authorised agents or servants and the criminal act or omission of an agent
including his state of mind, intension, knowledge or belief ought to be treated as the act or omission, including
the state of mind, intension, knowledge or belief of the company.
iii. Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
In this case court held that there is no doubt that a corporation is liable to be punished by imposition of fine
and by sequestration for contempt for disobeying orders of competent courts directed against them. A
command to a corporation is infact a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its
affairs. If, they after being apprised of the order directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take
appropriate action, within their powers, for the performance of the duty of obeying those orders, they and the
corporate body are both guilty of disobedience and may be punished for contempt.
9. Liability of state for acts of employees
In England The state is not responsible for the crimes committed by its
servants. It is not based on the Rex concept, so the king can not make any
mistakes. There is no legal boundary for naming a king as a saint or having the
necessary meaning.
In India till 1967 the position was similar to that in England and the state was
not to be proceeded against under the IPC or under any other statute.
However, in Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal
v. Corpn of Calcutta, a Full Bench of nine judges of the Supreme Court
overruled its earlier decision in Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corpn
of Calcutta[xviii] and held that common law doctrine, which states that the
Crown is not bound by a statute, save by express provisions or necessary
implication, is not the law of the land after the Constitution of India came into
effect. Both civil and criminal statutes apply to citizens and states alike. In the
case of Sahali v. Commissioner of Police[xix] also, it was held that with the
evolution of strict constitutional regimes and law-sovereign immunity has
been waived by most jurisdictions with respect to most subject matter.
10. Responsibilities of Licensees
Although contrary to the instructions of the licensee, I am responsible for the actions
of his staff, the licensee, who is well settled in England and India, and acts within the
scope of his authority. The licensee does not always need the knowledge of the
licensee to be held accountable for the actions of his employees. Otherwise, the very
purpose of the statute of licenses given by individuals of good characters will fail.
In Emperor v. Mahadevappa Hanmantappa, the accused held a license under Indian
Explosive Act 1884, to manufacture gun powder. According to the license, the
manufacturing could take place in a building exclusively meant for that purpose and
separated from any dwelling place, highway, street, public thoroughfare or public
place by a distance of 100 yards. The accused lived in a village and constructed a
building outside the village which complied with this condition and employed women
to manufacture gun powder there. One day, the servant took the necessary material
for the manufacture of the gun powder, went to the house of accused in the village
and performed part of the process of manufacture there. At that time there was an
explosion. The accused was charged with breach of conditions of his licence. The
accused was held to be liable for the same, in view of the fact that what the servant
did was in furtherance of her masters business and not in pursuance of any purpose of
her own. What she had done was within the general scope of her employment and
the breach of the condition of the licence was committed when she was so engaged.
