Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 276
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
M. R. MENGDEY, J
Pankajbhai Kantilal Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 805 of 2024, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 1526 of 2023, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 806 of 2024, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 418 of 2024, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 807 of 2024, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 827 of 2024, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 1504 of 2023, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 1087 of 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Petitioner Advocates: MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765)
Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Directors cannot be held liable for culpable homicide under IPC without evidence of knowledge or intention regarding the misuse of company resources.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code - Section 304 - Revision Applications filed to quash orders dismissing discharge applications for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Applicants, Directors of Amos Corporation, claimed no knowledge of spurious liquor production - Court found no material connecting applicants to the offence, leading to discharge. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Culpable Homicide - Definition and requirements under IPC - Knowledge and intention are crucial for culpability - Mere inaction or lack of knowledge does not establish liability under Section 304. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
(C) Vicarious Liability - Directors not automatically liable for company’s actions without specific allegations of personal involvement - Legal principles governing vicarious liability clarified. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, Directors of Amos Corporation, were implicated in a case of culpable homicide due to spurious liquor consumption resulting in deaths. They argued lack of knowledge and involvement in the company's operations. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to establish culpability under Section 304 IPC, leading to the discharge of the applicants. (Paras 18)
Issues: The main issues included the applicants' knowledge of the activities leading to the deaths and the applicability of vicarious liability. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere inaction or lack of knowledge does not constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, and vicarious liability requires specific allegations of personal involvement. (Paras 10, 16)
Result: Revision Applications allowed in part; orders quashed and applicants discharged from Section 304 IPC. (Paras 18)
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Revision Applications have been filed by the applicants under the provisions ofSection 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash and set aside the orders;
(i) dated 8.5.2024 passed below Exh.116 in Sessions Case No.71 of 2022 by learned Sessions Judge, Botad;
(ii) dated 15.2.2024 passed below Exh.118 in Sessions Case No.283 of 2022 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural;
(iii) dated 8.5.2024 passed below Exh.101 in Sessions Case No.70 of 2022 by learned Sessions Judge, Botad;
(iv) dated 15.6.2024 passed below Exh.223 in Sessions Case No.283 of 2022 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural;
(v) dated 30.10.2023 passed below Exh.83 in Sessions Case No.283 of 2022 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural.
1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned PP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise of filing of these applications are such that the incidents of death having been caused because of consumption of spurious liquor had occurred in various parts of the State of Gujarat. Several FIRs came to be registered in that regard in various police stations of the State. The investigating agency after carrying out the investigation, had filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons, including the present applicants, mainly for an offence punishable under theSection 304 of IPC and with other alliedoffences. The applicants herein have preferred the applications under the provisions of Section 227 of Cr.P.C, claiming discharge from the offences in question. The respective trial courts, vide respective impugned orders were pleased to dismiss those applications, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the applicants herein have preferred the present Revision Applications.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, appearing for some of the applicants, submitted that the applicants herein are the Directors of one Amos Corporation and one of them is aged about 87 years. The present applicants were not actively involved in day to day administration of the company in question. The present applicants had been appointed as the Director of the company only for the name-sake. Thus, the present applicants though being the Directors of the company, had no knowledge, whatsoever, as regards the affairs of the company.
3.1 He further submitted that the present applicants, or for that matter, the other applicants of the other applications, have not been named in the FIR as an accused. The company namely Amos Corporation was indulged in the activity of packaging of methyl alcohol and had entered into an agreement for the same with one Finar Limited. The Amos Corporation was also holding a valid licence for storage of methyl alcohol under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The said Amos Corporation had also issued a naukarnama in favour of the co-accused Jayesh Khavadiya. Thus, the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and for that matter, the other relevant Rules and Regulations have been duly followed by the company and once the said Jayesh Khavadiya had been issued naukarnama, the Directors of the company cannot be held personally liable for the acts of the company.
3.2 He next submitted that the statement of the said Jayesh Khavadiya came to be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation, and he in his statement has categorically stated that he had supplied the stock of methyl alcohol to the other co-accused for want of money. The statement of the said Jayesh Khavadiya absolves the Directors of the company of the criminal liability. He submitted that the applicants herein cannot be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC by any stretch of imagination as no intention or knowledge, as required under the provisions of Section 304 of IPC, can be attributable to the present
