The Karnataka High Court has held that principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute.
The single-Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing the defamation proceedings against MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year 2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada Television Channel, has observed:
"The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner herein had assailed the criminal proceedings intiated against him for offences punishable under Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
A complaint was registered against the petitioner and several others on 14-03-2012, for an incident that happened on 02-03-2012 during which Advocates gathered in large numbers and created ruckuswhen one of the prominent personalities was being brought before the competent criminal Court at Bangalore.
The telecast was run in Media Channels and particularly in one the petitioner was MD and Advocates were allegedly compared to hooligans.
Defamation proceedings were thus initiated against the petitioner which he was aggrieved of.
High Court Observation
The Court set to answer the below aspects in the present matter:
(i) Whether the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner without arraigning the company as an accused?
(ii) Whether the order issuing process is in violation of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C?
(iii) Whether the order setting the criminal trial in motion under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. does bear existence of sufficient ground?
(iv) Whether there can be defamation of an indeterminate group?
The Court rejected the contention that for the acts of the company the petitioner would become vicariously liable and regarded it as unacceptable, noting that there cannot be vicarious liability in criminal law under the Indian Penal Code.
The Court referred to Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2007 Latest Caselaw 736 SC, S.K. ALAGH v. STATE OF U.P2, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, v. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED, SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI v. SANGITA RANE.
In view of the above, the Court noted that the very complaint was not maintainable as it is blatantly obvious that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was privy to the publication of such imputation or that he was directly responsible for publication or airing of the incident as alleged.
"The Managing Director is supposed to have control over the management of the television channel and its financial aspects; he cannot be seen to be directly concerned with the airing of the news items except when there are no materials to draw such conclusion that the Managing Director was also privy to the airing of the said news. The petitioner could not have been roped in for having committed the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC."
It reiterated the Supreme Court stand that the principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute.
"The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel. Therefore, the first point that has arisen for consideration is answered against the prosecution holding that complaint itself was not maintainable against the petitioner."
In dealing with the second question, in tune with the Apex Court's interpretion of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the Court noted that it was mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to have postponed issuance of process and to do so, only after holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. which admittedly has not been complied with by the learned Magistrate which is missing in the present case.
The Court cited, UDAYA SHANKAR AWASTHI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER, Vijay Dhanuka Etc. Vs. Najima Mamtaj Etc., 2014 Latest Caselaw 203 SC, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2018 Latest Caselaw 858 SC
In answer to third point, the Court stressed that Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that there should be existence of sufficient ground to issue process and in the present case though reasons were given in the order, the same though lacked application of mind to the law.
"the order taking cognizance could be in tune with the existence of sufficient material to issue summons, but the same cannot be held to be in tune with law. The order though contains reasons, the same are erroneous."
With regard to the fourth point, the Court noted that a definite collection of persons is an expression which will not relate to huge mass of people, such a construction cannot be rendered to either Section 499 or Explanation-2 to Section 499.
It thus opined that the statements made in the present matter would not amount to defamation as obtaining under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.
Matter was accordingly remitted back to the Magisterate.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
