A Managing Director cannot be held criminally liable for a company's actions unless the company is also made an accused, as established by precedents on vicarious liability.

JUDGMENT

1. The present proceeding impugns order dated 15.07.2019 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl. Case No.8592/2017 as well as seeks quashing of FIR No. No.781/2014 registered under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act and the consequent proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case arose out of an incident dated 13.08.2014 where one Lakhmi Chand, driver of car No. DL-4CNA-3251 was caught in possession of 15 bottles of different liquor brands and two cases of beer of Kingfisher Brand. He was apprehended on the basis of secret information and during interrogation disclosed the name of the present petitioner who was Managing Director of the company who owned the car.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on receipt of notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C, the petitioner had replied that the co-accused, Lakhmi Chand went to drop an employee who had used the vehicle for unlawful purpose. It was further contended that the petitioner has been summoned in his individual capacity whereas the company has not been made accused in the present case.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that the name of the petitioner has come in the disclosure statement of the accused Lakhmi Chand where he had stated that he had purchased the seized liquor bottles at the asking of the present petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and have gone through the records.

6. The present case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act and during investigation Section 58 Delhi Excise Act was also added. On 25.03.2017, the chargesheet was filed under the aforesaid sections against Lakhmi Chand and the present petitioner. The Investigating Officer along with the chargesheet, also filed site plan and seizure memo of the car, its registration certificate, insurance cover note & policy papers alongwith other documents.

7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not the owner of the car and in fact it was the company who was the registered owner of the car in all the documents seized during the investigation. There is no investigation carried out whether the seized bottles were purchased on that day as stated by Lakhmi Chand in his disclosure statement.

8. The relevant portion of the chargesheet so far as the role of the present petitioner is concerned is reproduced below:

"...disclosure statement of accused Lakhmi Chand was taken and owner of the car accused Ramesh Chand Kathuria was also interrogated..."

9. From the material collected during investigation and filed along with the chargesheet i.e., the seizure memo of the car, its RC and insurance papers show that `Norma Ispat Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as `company') was the registered owner of the car.

10. The trial court vide order dated 15.07.2019 framed charge under Section 52(2) read with 58 of Delhi Excise Act against the present petitioner and under Section 33 of Delhi Excise Act with respect to accused Lakhmi Chand. The impugned order, while noting the argument on behalf of the prosecution, passed the following order:

"It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that as per provision of Section 52.2 of Delhi Excise Act, as accused Ramesh Chand was working as MD of the above said company, therefore, he is presumed to be in-charge of day to day affairs and the above said provision of law presumes that the owner of the vehicle is deemed to be guilty for unlawful use of the vehicle.

After he