legal maxim

The maxim “Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se” means “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to be have done it himself”. This maxim tells us about liability by relation and the law of vicarious liability is reflected from this maxim. In such cases the law not only holds the accused responsible, but also some other people, regardless of their actions. This maxim aims at targeting those who often delegate others to do the dirty work for them. But, before applying this maxim, it must be made sure that the other person involved should have some kind of relation with the accused. The application of this maxim forms the basis for “Respondeat Superior” which means that the master shall be responsible for the actions of his subordinate. This maxim is also just a simpler version of the phrase “qui facit per alium, est perinde ac si facit per se ipsum” which means that “whoever acts through others acts as if he were doing it himself”. It is not new to Indian Judiciary and was reflected in Chanakya’s Niti wherein he referred that a King is responsible for the actions of his subjects. The maxim of Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se also extends to partners in a business who are referred to as tortfeasors. This maxim, however, does not extend to the Criminal Law.

Deo Narain Rai & Anr. v. Kukur Bind & Ors.

The case was filed by the appellant in order to extract his money which he had to give to the respondent since the respondent, Mr. Bind’s signature was not on the mortgage deed. In the Allahabad High Court, it was shown that Mr. Bind was an illiterate and a Mr. Shiunandan Lal was authorised by him to sign the deed. The Court applied the maxim of Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se and held that when a person signs a document on behalf of someone else, the person’s signature becomes of that of the one on whose behalf it is signed, Thus, the appeal was granted.

Ballavdas Agarwala v. Shri J. C. Chakravarty

In this case, it was argued by the appellant that according to the licence, he was not authorised to sell butter and thus, he was not responsible for the sale of adulterated and misbranded butter which was seized. The Court held this stance to be without substance and observed that by applying the maxim of Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se, it was very clear that anything sold directly or indirectly becomes the liability of the master, even though the product may have been sold outside his licence range.