When Company Is An Offender, No Vicarious Liability Can Be Attached To Its Officers Unless Statute Specifically...
When Company Is an Offender, No Vicarious Liability Can Be Attached to Its Officers Unless Statute
1. Legal Principle
A company is a separate legal entity distinct from its officers, directors, and employees (established in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)).
When a company commits an offence, liability primarily rests with the company as an entity.
Vicarious liability means holding one person liable for the acts of another based on their relationship (e.g., employer-employee).
However, unless the statute explicitly imposes liability on officers or directors, mere association with the company does not automatically attract personal criminal liability.
The officers’ personal liability arises only when:
They are specifically named in the statute as liable.
There is evidence of their direct involvement in the offence.
They have consented to, connived at, or neglected their duties amounting to offence.
2. Statutory Context
Several laws dealing with company offences expressly impose liability on officers in default (e.g., Section 141 of the Companies Act, 2013).
In the absence of such specific provisions, officers cannot be held liable merely because the company is guilty.
3. Important Case Laws
a) K.N. Beena v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2376
The Supreme Court held that officers of a company cannot be held liable for offences committed by the company unless they are specifically held responsible under the statute.
Mere status as a company officer is insufficient to attract criminal liability.
b) Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1360
It was held that a person accused must be proved to have committed the offence or abetted it.
Officers not involved personally or knowingly in the offence cannot be held liable simply because they hold a position in the company.
c) Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 289
The Court clarified that criminal liability must be based on active or conscious participation.
Without statutory provision, vicarious liability cannot be imposed on officers.
d) B.C. Srinivasa Setty v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1968 SC 498
Held that company as a legal person and individuals must be distinguished.
Liability on officers is not automatic and depends on statutory language and facts.
4. Practical Implications
When prosecuting offences by companies, authorities must identify specific officers responsible.
Investigation must focus on individual mens rea (guilty mind) or negligence.
Directors or officers can escape liability if they prove due diligence and absence of involvement.
5. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Company as Separate Entity | The company itself is liable for offences committed in its name. |
| Vicarious Liability | Not automatic; requires express statutory provision or proven personal culpability. |
| Officer’s Personal Liability | Arises only when statute specifically states or when officer is involved in offence knowingly. |
| Proof Required | Active role, consent, connivance, or neglect must be proved for officers to be liable. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments