Office Bearer Can’t Be Held Vicariously Liable In Criminal Proceedings Unless Company Is Made Accused: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates

Post published:June 1, 2022
Post category:Daily Judgments / High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
Reading time:5 mins read

Office Bearer Can’t Be Held Vicariously Liable In Criminal Proceedings Unless Company Is Made Accused

Case: SANDEEP SINGH & ORS. Vs. NISAR AHMAD DAR

Corum: Justice Sanjay Dhar

Case No.: CRM(M) No.263/2020

Court Observation: “Each and every action of the petitioners was in their capacity as office bearers of the company and whatever they did, the same was done on behalf of the company. Even the money was received from the respondent/complainant in the account of the company. Thus, without impleading the company as an accused, the proceedings against the petitioners could not have been initiated. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has, therefore, erred in issuing process against the petitioners.”

“Even the money was received from the respondent/complainant in the account of the company. Thus, without impleading the company as an accused, the proceedings against the petitioners could not have been initiated. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has, therefore, erred in issuing process against the petitioners.”

SANDEEP-SINGH-ORS.-Vs.-NISAR-AHMAD-DAR-1-July-6 Download

Previous Posts

Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former Vice-Chancellor Of Magadha University In Corruption Case, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail

Extra-Judicial Confession Made By Co-Accused Could Be Admitted In Evidence Only For Corroboration: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy

Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Real Estate Appellate Authority Can’t Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose: Delhi High Court

Child Is Not A Commodity, Parent’s Income & Better Education Prospects Not Sole Criteria For Deciding Custody: Chhattisgarh High Court

Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court

Unlawful Possession Can’t Be Defended On The Ground That Eviction Clause In Statute Is Prospective In Nature: Orissa High Court

Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case Download Judgement