Directors Criminal Responsibility
Directors are individuals appointed to manage and oversee the affairs of a company. Their criminal responsibility arises when they act in a manner that violates criminal laws during the conduct of company business.
1. Basis of Directors’ Criminal Liability
Directors can be held criminally liable for:
Offences committed by the company under statutes.
Personal involvement or negligence.
Criminal acts such as fraud, misrepresentation, corruption, or breach of statutory duties.
2. Legal Doctrines Relevant to Directors’ Liability
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability: Generally, companies are liable for offences, but directors can also be personally liable if their acts or omissions constitute the offence.
Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines “Public Servant” in some contexts, but similar principles of accountability apply.
Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013: States that in case of offences by a company, every officer in charge at the time may be held liable unless they prove due diligence.
3. Key Points on Criminal Responsibility
Active Participation: Directors involved in planning, directing, or authorizing illegal activities can be held liable.
Negligence or Failure to Act: Even if directors did not actively commit the offence, they may be liable if they failed to exercise due diligence.
Personal Knowledge and Consent: Liability depends on knowledge, consent, or willful blindness.
Important Case Laws on Directors’ Criminal Responsibility
1. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 129 Comp Cas 666 (SC)
Facts: Directors were held liable for financial irregularities and violations under FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act).
Held: The Supreme Court held that directors could be personally prosecuted if they were involved in or consented to illegal transactions. Mere position is not enough; active role or negligence is crucial.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Bank (1991) AIR 1584
Facts: Directors were held liable for fraudulent transactions conducted by the company.
Held: The court ruled that directors must exercise due diligence. Failure to supervise company affairs adequately may lead to criminal liability.
3. N.K. Verma v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 315
Facts: Directors were prosecuted under the Companies Act for non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Held: The court stated that directors are responsible for ensuring compliance with laws and can be personally held liable for violations, especially if they have direct knowledge.
4. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157
Facts: The case involved criminal conspiracy by company officials and directors.
Held: Directors can be held liable for criminal conspiracy if they conspire to commit offences through the company.
5. T. Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 248
Facts: Directors charged with offences relating to misappropriation and cheating.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that directors are personally liable if they are involved in the commission of offences or fail to prevent them.
6. UOI v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1843
Facts: This case dealt with directors’ liability in customs and excise violations.
Held: The Supreme Court held that criminal liability of directors arises where they are shown to have a role or knowledge of the offences.
7. CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers Ltd., (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC)
Facts: Tax evasion by company and directors.
Held: Directors can be held responsible for criminal tax violations if they are proven to be involved in or have consented to the offence.
Summary of Principles from Cases
| Case Name | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Chartered Bank v. DOE | 2005 | Directors liable for active role or negligence in offences |
| State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Bank | 1991 | Due diligence by directors is mandatory |
| N.K. Verma v. R.K. Sharma | 1996 | Directors must ensure statutory compliance |
| R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra | 1973 | Criminal conspiracy includes directors if involved |
| T. Venkateshwara Rao v. AP | 1991 | Directors liable for misappropriation and cheating |
| UOI v. Raghubir Singh | 1989 | Liability if directors have knowledge or role in offences |
| CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers Ltd. | 1980 | Directors liable for tax evasion if involved or consenting |
Important Legal Provisions Applicable
Section 149 of Companies Act, 2013: Liability for offences committed by company.
Section 65, 66 of Companies Act (Earlier Act): Penal provisions against directors.
Various Special Laws: Such as FEMA, SEBI regulations, Income Tax Act, Customs Act, where directors may be prosecuted.
Conclusion
Directors cannot hide behind the corporate veil when they knowingly participate or fail to prevent serious offences. Courts require proof of involvement, knowledge, or negligence before imposing criminal responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments