INTRODUCTION
In the recent judgment of C.B.I. (“Appellant”) vs. M/s. Blue –Sky Tie-up Limited & Ors. (“Respondent”)1, the Supreme Court reiterating the position of law held that companies are liable for prosecution of criminal offences and fines may be imposed on the companies.
The present appeal arose from criminal applications quashed by the Calcutta High Court (“Calcutta HC”). The Appellant filed criminal applications against the Respondents for committing criminal offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to that, the Respondents filed applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the said proceedings.
The Calcutta HC quashed the proceedings against the Respondent No. 1 on the false premise that the company being a body corporate cannot be prosecuted. The Supreme Court relying on theStandard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2 has held that offences committed by the Respondent No. 1 being grave in nature, fines may be imposed upon them and set aside the quashing of the proceedings.
ANALYSIS
In our April 20, 2011 hotline titled, “Corporations no longer immune from criminal prosecution” we discussed the landmark decision in Iridium India Telecom Limited –Vs- Motorola Incorporated & Others,3 (“Motorola Judgment”) where the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) held that the corporations can no longer claim immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they are incapable of possessing the necessary mens rea for the commission of criminal offences.
In the Motorola Judgment it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a corporation is virtually in the same position as any individual and may be convicted of common law as well as statutory offences including those requiring mens rea. The criminal liability of a corporation would arise when an offence is committed in relation to the business of the corporation by a person or body of persons in control of its affairs and relied on the ratio in Standard Chartered Bank Case (Supra).
The Motorola Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court settled all doubts that corporations are liable to be prosecuted for offences under IPC. The Courts earlier had rescinded from imposing criminal liability on corporate, on grounds of inability of a corporate to posses mens rea and the impossibility of a corporate to be subject to mandatory imprisonment. In the Motorola Judgment relying on the Standard Chartered Bank Case (Supra), the Supreme Court settled the law by making corporate bodies amenable to criminal prosecution.
It is now established law that since companies cannot be imprisoned, fines should be imposed. If that was not the case, companies would go scot free for grave offences as mandatory custodial sentences are prescribed as punishment. Further, companies would be prosecuted only for minor offences as fines are the prescribed punishment. The legislative intent has never been to let corporate bodies go free for such grave offences.
- International Disputes Team
(Payel Chatterjee, Vyapak Desai & Vivek Kathpalia)
The contents of this hotline should
not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.
This hotline does not constitute a
legal opinion and may contain information generated
using various artificial intelligence (AI) tools or
assistants, including but not limited to our in-house
tool,
NaiDA. We strive to ensure the highest quality and
accuracy of our content and services. Nishith Desai
Associates is committed to the responsible use of AI
tools, maintaining client confidentiality, and adhering
to strict data protection policies to safeguard your
information.
This hotline provides general information
existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is
intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates
neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any
loss arising to any person acting or refraining from
acting as a result of any material contained in this
Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice
be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances.
This hotline does not substitute the need to refer to
the original pronouncements.
This is not a spam email. You have
received this email because you have either requested
for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since
India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive,
which states that a email cannot be considered spam
if it contains the sender's contact information, which
this email does. In case this email doesn't concern
you, please
unsubscribe from mailing list.