SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 09-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 377 
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2015) 
JANUARY 09, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, MADAN 8. LOKUR AND 
A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Scams - 2G Spectrum Scam Case - Summoning of 
appellants not implicated as accused persons in the charge c 
sheet by CBI - Sustainability of - Policy decision of the 
Government to allocate additional spectrum, extending benefit 
to all Cellular Operating Companies including Pubic Sector 
Companies like MTNL and BSNL etc. -
Allegation of 
irregularities in the grant of additional spectrum against the o 
public servants and three cellular companies, which caused 
revenue loss to Government Exchequer - Registration of 
case by CBI - Charge sheet filed by CBI naming one public 
servant and three cellular companies - Order passed by the 
Special Judge, CBI whereby appellants-chairpersons and 
E 
managing director of the respective cellular companies not 
implicated as accused persons in the charge-sheet by CBI, 
summoned by Special Judge since they represented the 
directing mind and will of each company, they are/were treated 
as 'alter ego' of their respective companies and the acts of 
F 
the companies could be attributed and imputed to them - On 
appeal, held: Principle of 'alter ego' is that if the person or 
group of persons who control the affairs of the company 
commit an offence with a criminal intent, their criminality can 
be imputed to the company as well as they are "alter' ego" of 
the company - However, the said principle is applied in an 
G 
exactly reverse scenario and would run contrary to the 
principle of vicarious liability -
While issuing summons 
against the appellants, Special Magistrate took shelter under 
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A a so-called legal principle, which turned out to be incorrect in 
law - He did not record his satisfaction by mentioning the role 
played by the appellants which would bring them within 
criminal net - Trial court issued summons on an erroneous 
presumption in law -
Thus, order of summoning the 
8 
appellants set aside -
However, appellants could be 
summoned if incriminating materials are found against them 
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 319, 190. 
c 
Doctrines/Principles -
Principle of 'alter-ego -
Application of 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Even when a person is not named in the 
charge sheet as an accused person, the trial court has 
0 adequate powers to summon such a non-named person 
as well, if the trial court finds that the charge sheet and 
the documents/material placed along with the charge-
sheet disclose sufficient prima facie material to proceed 
against such a person as well. In the instant case, the 
Special Judge did not state in the order that after 
E examining the relevant documents, including statement 
of witnesses, he is satisfied that there is sufficient 
incriminating material on record to proceed against the 
appellants as well. After recording his satisfaction qua the 
four said accused persons, discussion about other three 
F individuals (including the two appellants) starts from next 
para where the Special Judge "also" finds and refers to 
the positions which these three persons hold/held in the 
three companies respectively. The Special Judge does 
not mention about any incriminating material against 
G them in the statement of witnesses or documents. On the 
other hand, the reason for summoning these persons 
and proceeding against them prima facie, are that these 
persons were/are "in the control of affairs of the respective 
companies; because of their controlling position, they 
H 
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
379 
INVESTIGATION 
represent the directing mind and will of each company; A 
state of mind of these persons is the state of mind of the 
companies. Thus, they are described as "alter ego" of 
their respective companies. It is on this basis alone that 
the Special Judge records that "in this fact situation, the 
acts of companies are to be attributed and imputed to B 
them". [Para 30, 31] [411-C-F; 412-C-G] 
Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement 
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 49: (2005) 4 SCC 530 - referred to. 
2. The principle laid down in Iridium India Telecom C 
Ltd. case is to the effect that the criminal intent of the 
"alter ego" of the company, that is the personal group of 
persons that guide the business of the company, would 
be imputed to the company/cor

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