LexSANJAY DUTT & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 446 : 2025 INSC 34 Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025) 02 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration According to the Range Forest Officer, the appellants (director and office bearers of the company) had illegally uprooted trees with JCB, destroyed them, and violated the section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The question that arises for consideration is whether vicarious liability that can be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers of the company. Headnotes† Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – s.4 r/w. s.19 – A license/necessary permission for development of the land in the specified area was granted in favour of a company – Complaint lodged by the Range Forest Officer – It was alleged that the appellants (director and office bearers of the company) had illegally uprooted trees and violated provisions of the Act, 1900 – The Presiding officer-cum-JMIC, Special Environment Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process for the offence punishable u/s.19 of the Act, 1900 – Correctness: Held: In the Scheme of the Act, 1900, there is no vicarious liability that can be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers of the company – It is the individual liability or the act that would make the person concerned liable for being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s.19 of the Act, 1900 – Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is difficult to take the view that the appellants herein are responsible for the alleged offence – There are no allegations worth the name in the complaint that the three appellants herein are directly responsible for uprooting of the trees with the aid of Bulldozers or JCB machines or causing damage to the environment – The [2025] 1 S.C.R. 447 Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. persons who were actually found at the site felling the trees have not been arrayed as accused in the complaint – Although the license/necessary permission for development of the land in the specified area had been granted in favour of the company, yet for the reasons best known to the complainant the company has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint – While a company may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not automatic – It depends on specific circumstances, particularly the interplay between the director’s personal actions and the company’s responsibilities – A director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such director personally acted in a manner that directly connects their conduct to the company’s liability – Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable – In the instant case, the allegations which find place against the appellants herein in their personal capacity are absolutely vague – No case could be said to have been made out for putting the three appellants to trial for the alleged offence – The Court concerned could not have issued process for the alleged offence – Thus, the impugned complaint and order taking cognizance of the said complaint is hereby quashed. [Paras 10, 11, 18] Principle – Vicarious Liability – Provision in statute – Requirement of: Held: It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so – Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent – The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable – For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question. [Para 13] 448 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Anr. v. Datar Switchgear Limited and Ors. [2018] 1 SCR 733 : (2010) 10 SCC 479 – referred to. List of Acts Punjab Land Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.