1. These petitions challenge a common order dated 9th March, 2011 directing framing of charge against the Petitioners in all the petitions for offence under Section 120B read with 420 and 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the P.C. Act) and against Petitioners Manoj Pahwa and Pankaj Nakra for offences under Section 420 and 471 read with 120B IPC.

2. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in CRL.M.C. 1574/2011 is that a gross illegality has been committed by the Learned Special Judge by passing the impugned order against the Petitioner No.1 which is a company with Petitioner No.2 its Managing Director and Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 its Executive Directors. It is contended that for offences under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act no vicarious liability can be fastened. The concept of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence is unknown until and unless the Statute specifically provides for the same. Reliance is placed on Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI (2003) 5 SCC 257; Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668; Maharashtra State Electricity Di