No Vicarious Liability For Criminal Offences In Absence Of Statute: Karnataka HC Quashes Defamation Case Against MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar: Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs K Koteswar Rao

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
17th February 2022

JUDGES:
M. Nagaprasanna, J.

PARTIES:
Rajeev Chandrasekhar(Appellant)
K. Koteswar Rao(Respondent)

SUBJECT

It is trite law that the principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC has quashed defamation case against MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar- the petitioner. It was held that the Managing Director or the Directors of an accused company would not be vicariously liable if the statutory provision has not specifically mentioned the same.

AN OVERVIEW

1. A complaint was registered against the petitioner who was Managing Director of a News Channel. The channel had telecasted an incident where a prominent personality was brought before the competent criminal Court and the Advocates who had gathered in masscreating ruckus were allegedly compared to hooligans.
2. The Petitioner was accused of mass defamation by the Respondent. The offence was cognized and Police had investigating the matter. By an order of the competent Court, a criminal trial was set in motion.
3. When the process was issued, the Petitioner had filed the petition in the High Court of Karnataka. The Court, in 2015, had stayed the proceedings against the Petitioner and the proceedings were concluded.
4. According to Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, for the uplink and downlink of news to a current affairs TV channel, permission was required. The parent company of the News Channel was granted permission.
5. The complaint against the Petitioner was made without arraigning the Channel and the parent company who was the broadcaster of the programme. That too, the particular programme was broad casted by several television channels.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Code of Criminal Procedure

• Section 200- Provides for the examination of the complaint
• Section 202- Provides for the postponement of issue of process
• Section 204- Provides for the issuance of process
• Section 482- Inherent Power of the High Court is outlined

Indian Penal Code

• Section 34- Outlines penalties for offence committed by several people in furtherance of common intention
• Section 199- Outlines Prosecution for Defamation
• Section 406- Outlines punishment for criminal breach of trust
• Section 499- Defines Defamation
• Section 500-Outlines punishment for defamation

ISSUES

1. Whether the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner?
2. Whether Section 202 of CrPC was violated in the process of issuance of the order?
3. Whether sufficient ground existed for the order to set the criminal trial in motion?
4. Whether an indeterminate group could be defamed?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The Counsel for the Respondent had submitted that the Petitioner was vicariously liable for the acts of the Company. It was the res judicata principle in the case of Maksud Saiyed v State of Gujrat that the IPC did not have any provisions which attached vicariously liability on part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the accused Company. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise if any statute had provided for the same.
2. In S. K. Alagh v State of U.P., it was held that in IPC, except for some provisions which explicitly provided for vicarious liability, the same should not be contemplated on the party who had not been charged directly for the commission of an offence related to other provisions. Under Section 406 of IPC, Managing Director could not be held to be vicariously liable as there was no such specific mention. In Sharad Kumar Sanghi v Sangita Rane, it was held that the complaint had the obligation to make the requisite allegations that would attract the provision which constituted vicarious liability.
3. The statutes applicable in the case were the IPC and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act where the principle of vicarious liability was absent. Further, the Petitioner was privy to the airing of the said news. The petitioner, therefore, could not be the principle of vicarious liability for committing the offence of defamation.
4. The amended Section 202 of Cr.P.C. that came into effect in 2006 provided that when the place of residence of the accused was beyond the area of Magistrate’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate would be empowered to take the cognizance of the offence after the Police Officer had investigated for the presence of sufficient ground for proceeding. In Udaya Shankar Awasthi v State of U.P. & Anr., it was held that the amended provision had mandated the postponement in the issue of the process where the accused resided in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to protect innocent people from being harassed. It was obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself or to a police officer to find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons.
5. In Section 204 of CrPC, the existence of sufficient ground to issue process was mandatory. The Competent had passed a detailed order that pointed that there was sufficient material to issue process and even reason for the same were enlisted. The order did contain sufficient material to issue the process, however, did not contain the application of mind to the law.
6. Explanation 2 of Section 499 of IPC had provided that the defamation could be against a company or an association or collection of persons. It provided that the offence was against a definite group of people and not an indefinite group of people. The news which had described Advocates as hooligans would not amount to defamation as it was made against an indefinite class of people, not against the association or definite collection of people.
7. In Eastwood v Holme, The Court of England had held that unless the alleged defamatory imputation had pointed to a particular individual, it would not amount to defamation. In G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, it was held for the defamatory imputation against a collection of persons to fall within the ambit of defamation, the collection of persons was required to be an identifiable body which was a group of particular persons who could be distinguished from the rest of the community.

CONCLUSION

The Court pointed out that it was unmistakably clear that the complaint was not maintainable against the Petitioner. Further, it was blatantly obvious that there was no allegation against the petitioner. The Petitioner did not reside within the area of jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate as per Section 202 of CrPC had to postpone the issuance of process and an enquiry, which was not complied with. It Court had pointed that the order taking cognizance had tunedwith the existence of sufficient material but not with the law. Thus, was considered erroneous. It was noted that advocates were indefinite class and defamatory imputation against them would not lead to offence.

The Criminal Petition was allowed and the impugned proceeding was quashed.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement