RAVINDRANATHA BAJPE versus MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC. on 27 September 2021

268

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

ARAVINDRANATHA BAJPE

v.

MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMICZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047-1048 of 2021)

B

SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Criminal Law – Vicarious liability – Allegation that theaccused-respondents with the common intention of laying pipelineCbeneath the properties belonging to the complainant, committedcriminal trespass into the properties and demolished stonecompound wall and also cut and destroyed about 100 trees –Magistrate issued process against respondents-accused nos.1 to8 for offences punishable u/ss.427, 447, 506 and 120B r/w s.34DIPC – Sessions Court set aside the order of Magistrate – HighCourt confirmed the order of Sessions Court – Challenge to – Held:Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter –Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course –From the order passed by the Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents-accused nos. 1 to 8, there does not appear thatEthe Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima faciecase against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 – Merely becauserespondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 & 8 were the Chairman/ManagingDirector/ Executive Director/ Deputy General Manager/Planner &Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable,Funless, there were specific allegations and averments against themwith respect to their individual role – On facts, High Court rightlydismissed the revision applications and rightly confirmed the orderpassed by the Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the orderpassed by the Magistrate issuing process against respondent nos.1 to 8-original accused nos. 1 to 8.G

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. It was not even the case on behalf of thecomplainant that at the time when the compound wall wasdemolished and trees were cut, accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8Hwere present. Except the bald statement that accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 have conspired with common intention to lay thepipeline within the schedule properties belonging to thecomplainant, without any lawful authority and right whatsoeverand in furtherance they have committed to trespass into theschedule properties of the complainant and demolished thecompound wall, there are no other allegations that at that timethey were present. Accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are stationedat Hyderabad. There are no further allegations that at thecommand of A2 to A5 and A7 & A8, the demolition of thecompound wall has taken place. All of them are arrayed as anaccused as Chairman, Managing Director, Deputy GeneralManager (Civil & Env.), Planner & Executor, Chairman andExecutive Director respectively. Therefore, as such, in absenceof any specific allegations and the specific role attributed tothem, the Magistrate was not justified in issuing process againstaccused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.[Para 7.1][277-C-F]

2.1. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is aserious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as amatter of course. [Para 8.2][279-C-D]

2.2. In the order issuing summons, the Magistrate has torecord his satisfaction about a prima facie case against theaccused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary andthe Directors of the Company and the role played by them intheir respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiatingcriminal proceedings against them. Looking to the avermentsand the allegations in the complaint, there are no specificallegations and/or averments with respect to role played by themin their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, ExecutiveDirector, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor.Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/orPlanner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific roleattributed and the role played by them in their capacity, theycannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannotbe held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 &A6. [Para 8.3][279-H; 280-A-C]

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A2.3. From the order passed by the Magistrate issuing theprocess against the respondents herein – accused nos. 1 to 8,there does not appear that the Magistrate has recorded hissatisfaction about a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2to 5 and 7 & 8. Merely because respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 &8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/ Executive Director/BDeputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automaticallythey cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, there are specificallegations and averments against them with respect to theirindividual role. Under the circumstances, the High Court hasrightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightlyCconfirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court quashing andsetting aside the order passed by the Magistrate issuing processagainst respondent nos. 1 to 8– original accused nos. 1 to 8 forthe offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120Bread with Section 34 IPC. [Para 9][280-C-F]

3. The Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint againstDoriginal accused nos. 9 to 13 on its own merits, in accordancewith law. [Para 10][280-G]

GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India InfolineLimited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 : [2013] 5 SCR 276 ; SunilBharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015)E4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1 SCR 377 ; Maksud Saiyed v.State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : [2007] 9 SCR1113 ; and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special JudicialMagistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR12 – relied on.FCase Law Reference From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2015 of the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition Nos.3989 and 3990Hof 2014.

Shailesh Madiyal, Anantha Narayana M. G., Tarun Gulia, AnkitVerma, Ms. Neha Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.

Nishanth Patil, Anup Jain, Vidit Monga, Ms. Shubhika Saluja,P. P. Hegde, Ms. Charu Ambwani, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Advs. forthe Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka atBengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 3989/2014 and Criminal Petition No.3990/2014, by which the High Court has dismissed the said revisionpetitions and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by thelearned Sessions Court, by which the learned Sessions Court set asidethe order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Mangalore dated 24.09.2013 issuing summons against original accusednos. 1 to 8 – respondents herein, the original complainant has preferredthe present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are asunder:

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are asunder:

That the appellant herein – original complainant filed a privatecomplaint against in all thirteen accused (accused nos. 1 to 13) in theCourt of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangalore beingP.C. No. 119/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418,420, 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. It was the caseon behalf of the complainant that he is the absolute owner and inpossession & enjoyment of the immovable property described in theschedule attached to the private complaint and the schedule propertieswere surrounded by a stone wall as boundary. That the scheduleproperties are abutting Mangalore-Bajpe Old Airport Road. It was statedthat there were valuable trees on the schedule properties.

2.1 It was contended that the accused No.1 is a companyincorporated under the Companies Act and accused No.2 beingChairman and accused No.3 being Managing Director and accusedNo.4 being Deputy General Manager (Civil & Env.) of accused No.1and accused No. 5 was the planner and executor of the project workof accused No. 1.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A2.2 It was stated that accused No. 6 is also a Companyincorporated under Companies Act. Accused No.7 was its chairman.Accused No 8 was the Executive Director, Accused No. 9 was theSite supervisor of accused No.6. Accused No.10 was the sub-contractorunder accused No.6 and accused Nos. 11 to 13 were the employeesof accused No.10.B

A

2.3 It was contended by the complainant that accused No.1intended to lay water pipeline by the side of Mangalore-Bajpe OldAirport Road abutting the schedule properties. In that regard, he hadobtained permission from the Department of Public Works, Mangalore.Accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 appointed accused No.6 asCa contractor for execution of the said project of laying the water pipeline. Accused No.6 in turn authorized accused Nos. 7 and 8 to executeand oversee the said work. They in turn had appointed accused No.9as site supervisor and the accused No.10 being the sub-contractorengaged accused Nos. 11 to 13 as labourers. Accused Nos. 4 and 5were entrusted the work of supervision and overseeing the pipelineDworks carried out by accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 through accused Nos. 9and 10 to 13. Accused Nos. 6 to 8 had put into service heavymachineries and excavators and their vehicles for carrying out the work.It was contended that accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 13 had conspiredwith common intention to lay the pipeline beneath the schedule propertiesEbelonging to the complainant without any lawful authority and rightwhatsoever. In furtherance thereof, they had trespassed over theschedule properties and demolished the compound wall which washaving the height of 7 feet and foundation of 2 feet to a distance of500 metres. They had cut and destroyed 100 valuable trees and laidpipeline beneath the schedule properties. It was contended that whenFthis high-handed act was committed by the accused, the complainantwas out of station and he came back on 21.4.2012 and noticed thedestructive activities. The accused have committed the act of mischiefand waste and caused pecuniary loss of more than Rs.27 lakhs to thecomplainant. All the accused are jointly and severally liable to makegood the loss to the complainant.G

2.4 It was contended that the complainant had questioned theaccused about their high-handed acts. But they were indulged in criminalintimidation by threatening the complainant of taking away his life if heinsists for making good the loss. Thereafter, the complainant filed acomplaint on 21.4.2012 before the SHO, Bajpe Police Station. No properHenquiry was held by the police. But accused No.5 gave a statement

admitting the guilt and also undertaking to pay adequate compensationto the complainant towards the damages caused to the property. Thesaid undertaking given by accused No.5 is binding on all the otheraccused. But thereafter, the accused have not come forward to makegood the loss and thereby, they have committed an act of criminal breachof trust and cheating.

2.5 It was contended that the accused were having no rightwhatsoever to commit trespass over the schedule properties and tocause damage. Each one of the accused had common intention to laythe pipeline by damaging the property of the complainant. With thatintention, they have committed criminal trespass and caused damages.Therefore, the complainant prayed the learned trial Court to takecognizance of the matter and to issue process against the accused. Theschedule properties described as immovable property were situated atMalavur Bajpe Village of Mangalore Taluk comprised in Sy.No. 56/2,measuring 7.50 acres, Sy. No, 178/2C measuring 1.76 acres, Sy.No.50/6B measuring 1.15 acres with trees standing thereon.

2.6 That the complainant was examined on oath before the Court.As many as nine documents came to be marked as ‘Exhibit C1 to C9’.That the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangalore by orderdated 24.09.2013 directed to register the case against all the accused,i.e, accused nos. 1 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that original accused no.1was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, original accusednos. 2 & 3 being Chairman and Managing Director of Accused no.1-company and accused no.4 was arrayed as an accused being DeputyGeneral Manager (Civil & Env.) of accused no.1. Accused No.5 wasthe Planner and Executor of the project work of accused no.1.Likewise, accused no. 6 was also a company incorporated under theCompanies Act, accused nos. 7 & 8 were arrayed as an accused beingChairman and Executive Director respectively of accused no.6.Accused no.9 was the Site Supervisor of accused no.6 and accusedno.10 was the Sub- Contractor under accused no.6 and accused nos.11 to 13 were the employees of accused no.10.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the summoning orderpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangalore forthe offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B readwith Section 34 IPC, original accused nos. 1 to 5 preferred Criminal A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARevision Petition No. 244/2013 and accused nos. 6 to 9 preferredCriminal Revision Petition No. 245/2013 before the learned SessionsCourt.

3.1 That the learned Sessions Court by its order dated 7.4.2014allowed criminal revision petition no. 244/2013 and partly allowed criminalBrevision petition no. 245/2013 and quashed and set aside the orderpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangalore insofaras same was against original accused nos. 1 to 8. The learned SessionsCourt thus confirmed the order passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Mangalore insofar as accused no. 9 isconcerned.C

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgmentand order passed by the learned Sessions Court passed in CriminalRevision Petition Nos. 244/2013 and 245/2013, the original complainantpreferred the present revision applications before the High Court andby the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed theDsaid revision applications. Hence, the present appeals by the originalcomplainant.

5. Shri Shailesh Madiyal, learned Advocate appearing on behalfof the original complainant has vehemently submitted that in the factsand circumstances of the case both, the High Court as well as theElearned Sessions Court have materially erred in quashing and settingaside the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning accusednos. 1 to 8 which was issued for the offences punishable under Sections427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

5.1 It is vehemently submitted that the High Court has notFproperly appreciated and considered the fact that earlier the complainantfiled an FIR before the concerned police station but nothing was doneand therefore the complainant – appellant herein was constrained tofile a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

5.2 It is submitted that the learned Magistrate after examiningGthe appellant – complainant on oath and after considering the evidence/material on record issued summons against accused nos. 1 to 13 forthe offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B readwith Section 34 IPC. It is submitted that therefore the learned SessionsCourt was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the learnedHMagistrate summoning the accused.

5.3 It is further submitted that at the stage of summoning theaccused, what is required to be considered is whether a prima faciecase is made out on the basis of the statement of the complainant onoath and the material produced at this stage and the detailed examinationon merits is not required.

5.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the complainant that even otherwise there was a specificallegation in the complaint that accused nos. 1 to 8 conspired with theco-accused to lay the pipeline under the property of the complainantand therefore at the stage of issuing process/summons, the revisionalcourt could not have interfered with the order passed by the learnedMagistrate summoning the accused. It is submitted that being theadministrators of the companies, all the executives are vicariously liable.

5.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow thepresent appeals and quash and set aside the orders passed by the HighCourt and the learned Sessions Court and restore the order passed bythe learned Magistrate.

6. Shri Nishanth Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofaccused nos. 1 to 5 and Shri P.P. Hegde, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of accused nos. 6 to 8 respectively have vehemently submittedthat in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularlywhen it was found that there are no specific allegations and the roleattributed to the accused except the bald statement that all of them haveconnived with each other, the learned Sessions Court was absolutelyjustified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrateissuing the process/summons against accused nos. 1 to 8.

6.1 It is submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisionsthat issuing summons/process by the Court is a very serious matter andtherefore unless there are specific allegations and the role attributed toeach accused more than the bald statement, the Magistrate ought notto have issued the process.

6.2 It is submitted that so far as accused nos. 2 to 5 areconcerned, they were arrayed as an accused being Chairman, ManagingDirector, Deputy General Manager (Civil & Env.) of accused no.1 andaccused no.5 is the Planner and executor of the project work and allof them were stationed at Hyderabad at the time of the commission ofthe alleged offence and there are no allegations that at the time ofcommission of the alleged offence, they were present. It is submitted A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Athat similarly accused nos. 7 & 8 were arrayed as an accused beingChairman and Executive Director of accused no.6 who also werestationed at Hyderabad at the time of commission of the alleged offenceand there are no allegations even against them that at the time ofcommission of the alleged offence, they were present. It is submittedthat even accused no.7 was aged 82 years. Therefore, the learnedBSessions Court has rightly quashed and set aside the order passed bythe learned Magistrate issuing the process against accused nos. 1 to 8herein for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and120B read with Section 34 IPC. Heavy reliance is placed on thedecisions of this Court in the cases of GHCL Employees Stock OptionCTrust v. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505; and Sunil BhartiMittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length. We have also gone through and considered the allegations inthe complaint. It is required to be noted that the learned MagistrateDissued the process against the respondents – accused nos. 1 to 8 forthe offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B readwith Section 34 IPC. In the complaint, after narrating the descriptionof the accused, in paragraphs I to VIII, it is alleged in paragraph IXand XIII as under:

IX. The accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 13 have conspired withEcommon intention to lay the pipeline beneath the schedule propertiesbelonging to the complainant, without any lawful authority and rightwhatsoever. In furtherance thereof they have committed trespass intoschedule property and demolished the stone compound wall of 7 feetheight foundation of 3 feet height beneath the ground and 2 feet wideFto the extent of about 500 meters and also cut and destroyed about100 valuable trees and laid pipeline beneath the schedule propertiesabout to the extent of 500 meters. They have used heavy machineriesfor the above said destructive activities in the schedule properties. Whenthose accused have committed the said offence the complainant wasnot in station and when he came back on 21-4-2012, he noticed theGabove said destructive activities in his properties. The accused havecommitted an act of mischief apart from other offenses which causedthe pecuniary loss not less than Rs.27,00,000/- to the complainant. Thecomplainant was not able to cultivate his lands due to the threat of straycattle’s and animals and thereby he had suffered loss of 2 years paddycrops and vegetable cultivation. As a result, the complainant hasH

suffered nearly about Rs.9,00,000/- and he will continue to suffer sameloss till the compound is reconstructed as before. All the accused jointlyand severally are to make good past and future loss to the complainantin terms of pecuniary measures.

XIII. It is very pertinent to note that the accused had/has no rightwhatsoever to commit to trespass into the schedule property and causedamage thereto as stated supra. Each one of them with commonintention to lay the pipeline by damaging the property of the complainantand improvements thereof, have committed criminal trespass into theschedule property and remained inside the property till the act ofdevastation was complete.

7.1 Except the above allegations, there are no further allegationsin the complaint. It was not even the case on behalf of the complainantthat at the time when the compound wall was demolished and treeswere cut, accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 were present. Except thebald statement that accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 have conspired withcommon intention to lay the pipeline within the schedule propertiesbelonging to the complainant, without any lawful authority and rightwhatsoever and in furtherance they have committed to trespass intothe schedule properties of the complainant and demolished thecompound wall, there are no other allegations that at that time they werepresent. Accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are stationed at Hyderabad.There are no further allegations that at the command of A2 to A5 andA7 & A8, the demolition of the compound wall has taken place. All ofthem are arrayed as an accused as Chairman, Managing Director,Deputy General Manager (Civil & Env.), Planner & Executor, Chairmanand Executive Director respectively. Therefore, as such, in absence ofany specific allegations and the specific role attributed to them, thelearned Magistrate was not justified in issuing process against accusednos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

8. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), it is observed bythis Court in paragraphs 42 to 44 as under:

“(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of theaffairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when thecompany is an accused person

42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which actsthrough its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, itwould normally be the intent and action of that individual whowould act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, whenthe criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time,it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there isno vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.

A

B

43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission ofan offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused,along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his activerole coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which hecan be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regimeitself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specificallyincorporating such a provision.

C

44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of theDirectors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of anystatutory provision to this effect. One such example is SectionD141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hadav. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, theCourt noted that if a group of persons that guide the business ofthe company have the criminal intent, that would be imputed tothe body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of theENegotiable Instruments Act has to be understood. Such a positionis, therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a deemingfiction. Here also, the principle of “alter ego”, was applied onlyin one direction, namely, where a group of persons that guidethe business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the bodycorporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be aFspecific act attributed to the Director or any other personallegedly in control and management of the company, to the effectthat such a person was responsible for the acts committed by oron behalf of the company.”

D

E

D

E

8.1 In the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008)G5 SCC 668, in paragraph 13, it is observed and held as under:

“13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filedin terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. ThePenal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicariousliability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of H

the Company when the accused is the company. The learnedMagistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz.as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face valueand taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusionthat the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence.The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of theManaging Director and Director would arise provided anyprovision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutesindisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities.Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of thecomplainant to make requisite allegations which would attract theprovisions constituting vicarious liability.”

8.2 As observed by this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and eventhereafter in catena of decisions, summoning of an accused in a criminalcase is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as amatter of course. In paragraph 28 in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), itis observed and held as under:

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a seriousmatter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter ofcourse. It is not that the complainant has to bring only twowitnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have thecriminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistratesummoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mindto the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He hasto examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint andthe evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof andwould that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringingcharge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is asilent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidencebefore summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has tocarefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may evenhimself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicitanswers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwiseand then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by allor any of the accused.”

8.3 As held by this Court in the case of India Infoline Limited(supra), in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has torecord his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awho are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directorsof the Company and the role played by them in their respectivecapacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedingsagainst them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in thecomplaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments withrespect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, ManagingBDirector, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner &Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and therole played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as anCaccused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for theoffences committed by A1 & A6.

9. From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing theprocess against the respondents herein – accused nos. 1 to 8, theredoes not appear that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfactionDabout a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8.Merely because respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable,unless, as observed hereinabove, there are specific allegations andaverments against them with respect to their individual role. Under theEcircumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the revisionapplications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learnedSessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by thelearned Magistrate issuing process against respondent nos. 1 to 8 herein– original accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.F

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.Needless to say, that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with thecomplaint against original accused nos. 9 to 13 on its own merits, inaccordance with law.G

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals dismissed.

H