Kerala High Court

K.S.Sajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2024

Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                2024:KER:88252



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                      CRL.MC NO. 3301 OF 2019

   CRIME NO.1510/2014 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

         AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CC NO.2265 OF 2015 OF

      JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

         K.S.SAJAN
         AGED 59 YEARS
         S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, CHAITRAM HOUSE, MUTTEKKADU
         DESOM, VENGALLUR, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
         DISTRICT.


         BY ADVS.
         S.RAJEEV
         SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
         SRI.V.VINAY
         SRI.D.FEROZE
         SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)




RESPONDENTS/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.(CRIME NO.1510/2014 OF
         MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).
                                                       2024:KER:88252
CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

                                  2



OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   21.11.2024,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                         2024:KER:88252
CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

                                   3


                   P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
           -----------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C.No.3301 of 2019
           -----------------------------------
       Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024


                               ORDER

The petitioner is the 4th accused in CC

No.2265/2015 on the files of Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, arising from Crime

No.1510/2014 of Mannuthy Police Station. It is a

prosecution initiated against the petitioner and

others alleging offence punishable under Section

7(i)(a)(ii)(c) of Essential Commodities Act and

Section 16 of Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968.

The case is suo muto registered by the Police. It is

alleged that while the police party were doing their

patrol duty, they saw a tanker lorry filled with

kerosene was being taken to a paint company situated

at Kozhukully. According to the prosecution,

kerosene was taken to the compound of Trust 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

Industries and the vehicle was restrained and found

that the lorry brought kerosene from civil supplies

corporation to the company without any authority and

the accused was arrested and the articles were

seized and the crime was registered. Originally, two

accused were arraigned as accused. But later, during

investigation the petitioner who is the licensee of

the Kerosene depot which is situated at Vizhinjam by

name Chaitram fuels was also implicated. Annexure-I

is the FIR and Annexure-II is the final report.

According to the petitioner, even if the entire

allegations are accepted, no offence is made out

against the petitioner who is the 4th accused. Hence,

this Crl.M.C.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner

and the Public Prosecutor.

3. The counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, he is the licensee (KWD.17-NTA,

KWD.19-NTA, KWD.22-NTA, KWD.35/NTA)of Chaitram 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

fuels. The licensee of the said dealer died on

13.08.2012 and in such circumstances, the license

issued in the above depot were cancelled and for the

distribution of kerosene to the retail dealers and

fishing boats, it was attached to the wholesale

depot run by the petitioner. Annexure-III is the

letter issued from the Taluk Supply Officer, is the

submission. It is submitted that the petitioner has

no overall control over the distribution. The

petitioner also informed the difficulty for the

distribution of kerosene attached to other depot

which was informed to the Taluk Supply Officer and

as per letter dated 12.08.2013, the charge of the

wholesale depot was detached from the petitioner's

license and handed over to another licensee by name

G.Krishnan and sons. Annexure-IV is the letter dated

12.08.2013. Petitioner further submitted that the

details regarding supply of kerosene from civil

supplies corporation was submitted by the Taluk 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

Supply Officer to the District Supply Office as

evident by Annexure-V. It is further submitted that

on enquiry, it was found that the kerosene which was

seized by the police on 13.09.2014 is the kerosene

supplied to Kattakada wholesale depot and not to the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the

petitioner was implicated in the crime without any

basis. It is also submitted that the appeal

submitted by the petitioner with respect to the

suspension of license was considered by the

Government of Kerala and as per proceedings dated

05.10.2017 and exonerated the petitioner,

considering that the petitioner has no active

involvement in diversion of the kerosene to another

component. Annexure-VI is the Government Order. It

is submitted that a perusal of Annexure-VI would

show that the petitioner has no active involvement

in the case. In such circumstances, the continuation

of prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

process of court is the submission. It is submitted

that the definite finding in the enquiry is that the

civil supplies corporation released 12,000 litres of

kerosene to Kattakada wholesale depot and the

petitioner in the capacity as licensee has an

overall management of the depot and the staff and

relatives of deceased Krishnankutty, who is the

original licensee holder of Kattakada depot were

dealing with the affairs of Kattakada depot. Hence,

it is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to

be prosecuted. The Public Prosecutor submitted that

the contention raised by the petitioner is to be

raised before the trial court at the appropriate

stage.

4. This Court considered the contention

of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The

main contention of the petitioner is that, in the

light of Annexure-VI, the continuation of 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of

process of court. The relevant portion of the

Annexure-VI is extracted hereunder:

" സർക്കാർ അപ്പീൽ വാദിയുടെ വാദങ്ങളും

ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട റിക്കാർഡുകളും പരിശോധിച്ചു,

നിലവിലുളള നിയമങ്ങൾ പ്രകാരം ഡിപ്പോ

ശരിയായ രീതിയിൽ പ്രവർത്തിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടത്‌

ഏജൻസിയുടെ കടമയാണ്. അതു കൊണ്ടു തന്നെ

ഡിപ്പോയിലെ ജീവനക്കാരുടെ ഭാഗത്ത്

നിന്നുണ്ടായ വീഴ്ച ലൈസൻസിയുടെ വീഴ്ചയായി

തന്നെ കണക്കാക്കാം. എങ്കിലും

ശ്രീ.കൃഷ്ണൻകുട്ടിയുടെ മരണത്തിനു ശേഷം

ലൈസൻസിയെ അധികമായി ഏൽപ്പിച്ച

ഡിപ്പോകളിൽ ശ്രീ.കൃഷ്ണൻകുട്ടിയുടെ തന്നെ

അവകാശികളും സ്റ്റാഫുകളും മുഖേനയാണ്

ഡിപ്പോ നടത്തുന്നത് എന്നും ചൈത്രം

ഫ്യൂവൽസിൽ ഇരുന്ന് ഒരു വിദൂര മേൽനോട്ടം

മാത്രമേ വഹിക്കുവാൻ കഴിയുളളൂ എന്ന

സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ സർക്കാർ തന്നിൽ ഏൽപ്പിച്ച

ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം ഡിപ്പോയിലെ സ്റ്റാഫുകളെ

വിശ്വാസത്തിലെടുത്ത് നടത്തി വന്നിരുന്ന 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ താൻ അറിയാതെ അതേ

സ്റ്റാഫുകൾ തന്നെ നടത്തിയ ക്രമക്കേടിന്റെ

ഫലമായി തന്നിയ്ക്കുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ഏജൻസി

നഷ്ടപ്പെടുകയും ജീവിത മാർഗ്ഗം തന്നെ

ഇല്ലാതാവുകയും ചെയ്തു എന്ന അപ്പീൽ വാദിയുടെ

വാദമുഖങ്ങളും തന്റെ സ്വന്തം ഡിപ്പോ ആയ

ചൈത്രം ഫ്യൂവൽസ് യാതൊരു പരാതിക്കും

ഇടവരാതെ നടത്തിക്കൊണ്ട് വന്നിരുന്നു എന്ന

കാര്യവും മാനുഷിക പരിഗണന

അർഹിക്കുന്നതായി കാണുന്നു.

                         പ്രസ്തുത              സാഹചര്യങ്ങളുടെ

             അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ             മാനുഷിക          പരിഗണന

             കണക്കിലെടുത്ത്          കെ.ഡബ്ല്യൂ.ഡി       01/05-06,

             ചൈത്യം          ഫ്യൂവൽസിൻ്റെ              ലൈസൻസ്

റദ്ദാക്കിക്കൊണ്ടുള്ള ജില്ലാ കളക്ടറുടെ പരാമർശം

(2) ലെ നടപടിക്രമവും അപ്പീൽ നിരസിച്ചു

കൊണ്ടുള്ള സിവിൽ സപ്ലൈസ് കമ്മീഷണറുടെ

പരാമർശം (3) ലെ നടപടിക്രമവും റദ്ദാക്കുകയും

ചൈത്രം ഫ്യൂവൽസിന്റെ ലൈസൻസ്

പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു കൊണ്ട് ഉത്തരവ്

പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുന്നു. മേലിൽ തന്റെ

ഉത്തരവാദിത്വത്തിലുളള ഒരു ഡിപ്പോയിലും

ഇത്തരത്തിലുളള ക്രമക്കേടുകൾ ഉണ്ടാകാതെ 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

നോക്കണമെന്ന് ലൈസൻസിക്ക് കർശന

നിർദ്ദേശം നല്കുകയും ക്രമക്കേടുകൾ ഉണ്ടാകുന്ന

പക്ഷം നിയമം അനുശാസിക്കുന്ന

നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുകയും

ചെയ്യുന്നതാണ് എന്നും ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു."

5. From the above, it is clear that the

Government found that the petitioner has no direct

control and the incident happened because of the

action from the staff. In other words, the

prosecution is now attributing vicarious liability

to the petitioner. The vicarious liability is

unknown in criminal law. This Court in Ashok Kumaran

@ Sabu C. v. State of Kerala [2023 (4) KHC 545],

considered this point in detail.

" 16. The neat principles derived from the jurisprudence established by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments are as follows.

a. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

statute specifically provides so.

b. A corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy.

c. If the individuals controlling a company, often referred to as the company's "alter ego", commit a crime with intent, their actions and ensuing legal repercussions can be attributed to the corporation itself. In other words, the company can be held accountable for the criminal conduct of its leadership.

d. An individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent.

2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

e. The individual who happens to be the director of a Company can be implicated in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability by specifically incorporating such a provision. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.

f. In scenarios where jurisdiction is exercised based on a complaint filed under S.156(3) or S.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has to pose unto himself the question as to whether the complaint, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the directors were personally liable for any offense.

g. In case the Magistrate chooses to issue summons to the Directors, it is

obligatory to record his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused and the role played by 2024:KER:88252 CRL.MC NO.3301 OF 2019

them in the capacity of Managing Director, Company Secretary, or Directors. The same is a sine qua non for initiating criminal action against them."

6. In the light of the above dictum, this

Court perused the finding in Annexure-VI order and

also in the final report. I am of the considered

opinion that the continuation of the prosecution

against the petitioner alone can be quashed in the

light of the above. But I make it clear that, this

order is not applicable to the other accused and the

case against the other accused will be considered by

the trial court in accordance with law untrammeled

by any observation in this order.

Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All

further proceedings against the petitioner alone in