Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Point No.1:- The concept of corporate criminal liability traces its origin to the doctrine "Respondent superior" which was widely propagated by the American Courts whereby an agent's conduct was imputed to the Corporation. Respondent Superior means "let the master answer". In United States, this doctrine was also called as "Master-Servant Rule" recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions. In a broader scope, respondent superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability. Thus, historically this doctrine was applied in Master-Servant and Employer-Employee relationships. When employee or a servant committed a civil wrong against the third party, the employer or master could be held liable when those acts were committed within the scope of the employment. This theory was also employed to Principal and Agent relationship. This was how the above principle was applied to Common law and Civil law cases.

10. However, as the time passed by, the corporate immunity gave way to corporate criminal liability. In 1909, the United States Supreme Court strongly propounded the criminal liability of a company in the case of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co. vs. United States (53 LED 613). It was held thus;

In this case we are to consider the criminal responsibility of a corporation for an act done while an authorized agent of the company is exercising the authority conferred upon him. It was admitted by the defendant at the trial that, at the time mentioned in the indictment, the general freight traffic manager and the assistant freight traffic manager were authorized to establish rates at which freight should be carried over the line of the New York Central & Hudson River Company, and were authorized to unite with other companies in the establishing, filing, and publishing of through rates, including the through rate or rates between New York and UDPR,J Detroit referred to in the indictment. xxxxxxxx.. Applying the principle governing civil liability, we go only a step farther in holding that the act of the agent, while exercising the authority delegated to him to make rates for transportation, may be controlled, in the interest of public policy, by imputing his act to his employer and imposing penalties upon the corporation for which he is acting in the premises. (emphasis supplied).

That is how Corporate Criminal liability was interpreted, introduced and executed.

UDPR,J

11. In Indian context, the aspect of corporate criminal liability was dealt with by a three Judges bench of apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore and others vs. Velliappa Textiles Limited and others5. The bench was engaged with two prominent questions.

(i) Whether a company can be attributed with mens rea on the basis that those who work or are working for it have committed a crime and can be convicted in a criminal case?

xxxxxxx

8. Therefore, as regards corporate criminal liability, there is no doubt that a corporation or company could be prosecuted for any offence punishable under law, whether it is coming under the strict liability or under absolute liability. Then, with regard to the question whether a company could be prosecuted for an offence for which mandatory sentence of imprisonment is provided, the majority view was expressed after referring various judgments of apex Court and several High Courts and by following the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia means (the law compels no impossibility) as follows: