G H SHIV KUMAR JATIA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 23-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
SHIV KUMAR JATIA
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No.1263 of 2019)
AUGUST 23, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Doctrine of vicarious liability –Corporate
criminal liability – Directors/Controlling authorities of company –
When not liable – On 16.10.13, the victim came to the hotel in
question to meet two resident guests of the hotel who were American
citizens – All three were having food and wine in the club on the 6th
floor and were frequently going out on terrace for smoking – Victim
fell from the terrace of 6th floor to the 4th floor of the hotel and got
injured – Appellants-accused charged u/ss.336,338 r/w s. 32, IPC
and s.4, 2003 Act– Chargesheet inter alia alleges criminal negligence
and violation of license conditions by the hotel management – High
Court declined to quash the FIR registered against the appellants –
On appeal, held: To prove guilt u/s.338, in addition to the elements
u/s.336 (the act, done rashly and negligently, to endanger human
life or personal safety), an additional consequence of grievous hurt
is to be proved – No allegation is made against the accused no.2,
Managing Director of the accused no.1 (the listed public company which
runs the Hotel in question) directly attributing negligence with the
criminal intent attracting provisions u/ss.336, 338 r/w s. 32, IPC –
Mere fact that he was chairing the meetings of the company and
taking decisions, by itself cannot directly link the allegation of
negligence with the criminal intent – Individual either as Director/
Managing Director/Chairman of the company can be made an
accused, along with the company, only if there is sufficient material
to prove his active role coupled with the criminal intent – Although
it is the case of the accused no.4-General Manager, that he was
also out of country on the date of incident, he being the General
Manager of the very hotel stands on different footing to that of
accused no.2 – When there is allegation of violation of licence
conditions and negligence against the General Manager and other
staff members, appropriate findings can be recorded after full-
fledged trial – Further, in absence of the allegations that the hotel
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
210
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 210
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
211
has not provided any smoking area at all in the entire hotel, there is
no reason to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence u/s.4,
2003 Act – No offence is made out against both the appellants –
Chargesheet filed against the accused no.-2 as also the summoning
order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, stands quashed –
Chargesheet filed against the accused no.4 is also quashed,
however summoning order is quashed only to the extent of
proceedings initiated u/s.4, 2003 Act – Cigarettes and Other Tobacco
Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply
and Distribution) Act, 2003 –”Regulations for keeping places of
public entertainment in Delhi 1980"– Regulation 19 – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.205, 317 and 482 – Doctrines.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 To prove the alleged offence under Section 336,
essential elements are, the act,  done rashly and negligently, to
endanger human life or personal safety.  To prove the guilt of the
accused under Section 338, in addition to the elements under
Section 336, an additional consequence of grievous hurt is to be
proved.  It is clear from the material placed on record that the
appellant (A-4) was not in the country on the date of the incident
and the license of the hotel is in the name of accused No.3. The
owner of the hotel is M/s Asian Hotels (North) Limited, which is
a public listed company made as accused no.1. Though there are
allegations of negligence on the part of hotel and its officers who
are incharge of day to day affairs of the hotel, so far as  appellant–
accused no.2 is concerned, no allegation is made directly
attributing negligence with the criminal intent attracting
provisions under Sections 336, 338 read with Section 32 of IPC.
Taking contents of the final report as it is, there is no reason and
justification to proceed against him only on ground that he  was
the Managing Director of M/s Asian Hotels (North) Limited, which
runs Hotel Hyatt Regency. The mere fact that he was chairing
the meetings of the company and taking decisions, by itself cannot
directly link the allegation of negligence with the criminal intent.
An in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.