Vicarious liability --
(i) In order to make the company liable u/s 138 of the Act vicariously, the Director can be prosecuted if there is specific recital that the Directors thereof were at the time when offence the offence committed, were responsible for the conduct and day to day business of the complaint -- Director, who had resigned long back before the cheque was presented cannot be prosecuted -- One of the Director in the array of accused was never Director of the company since its incorporation and still he has been arrayed as accused in the capacity of Director -- The certification to this effect is computerized information, which is perse admissible under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, rather this document has not been denied with reference to any evidence to the contrary.
(ii) Averments even if made in the complaint that the Director was in-charge, the same can be negated if the High Court comes across some unimpeachable/acceptable circumstance, which may lead to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and therefore, making such Director as an accused to stand trial would be an abuse of process of law.
(iii) It is mandatory in terms of Section 138 and 141 of the Act to specifically aver in the complaint that Director was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, when the offence was committed and he was responsible for day to day functioning of the company -- Role of the Director in a company is a question of fact depending upon the nomenclature of the company and other circumstances prevailing therein -- There cannot be any universal application of the rule that a Director of company is in-charge of its day to day affairs.
(iv) Section 141 of the Act is a penal provision creating criminal liability -- As per nature of the offence it has to be strictly construed -- It is not sufficient to make bald cursory statement in a complaint that Director/Directors is/are in-charge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without specifying anything more as to the role of the Director/Directors -- It is requirement of law that the complainant must spell out as to how and in what manner the accused are in-charge of the affairs of the company in the conduct of its business and thus responsible for the same.
(v) Some times a Director is not the active Director and he may be non executive Director, who was no doubt a custodian of governance of the company, but at the same time was not involved in day to day affairs running of its business -- For making such a Director liable there must have been specific averment in the complaint as to how and in what manner such a Director was responsible for conduct of business of the company -- In the absence of such plea the Court can definitely come to rescue of such Director against whom the proceedings are nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
(vi) “no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against the Director/accused unless specific allegations should comeforth in complaint, earmarking unambiguous role in the context of charge and responsibility in discharge of day to functioning of the company so as to prevent embarking on a fishing expedition to try and unearth material against the Director.
Complaint is liable to quashed being abuse of process of law and is deficient in formulising vicarious liability of the petitioners in terms of Section 141 of the Act.
(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2015
