Court : UK Supreme Court
..... 2002 (si 2002/2125), although not directly in issue, provide (in regulation 12) for the same entitlement to paid annual leave, but go on to provide not for civil liability, but for criminal liability in the event of any contravention of regulation 12. british airways argue that the need for legal certainty and the obstacles to any form of interpretive solution are all ..... basis that the same approach is to be transposed to the same language in the merchant shipping (hours of work) regulations 2002, the result would be to expose employers to criminal liability for failing to make an appropriate choice within uncertain parameters. so long as an employer's choice is within those parameters, no problem arises, and, if a bona fide choice ..... principle that the interpretive obligation recognised in cases such as marleasing should not be used with the effect of "determining or aggravating" domestic criminal liability: criminal proceedings against kolpinghuis nijmegen bv (case 80/86)  ecr 3969 , para 14 and criminal proceedings against arcaro (case c-168/95)  all er (ec) 82, para 42. 18. british airways notes that the present situation has ..... would appear remote. if the problem were to prove a real one, then the difference between the present regulations and those imposing criminal liability might itself also require a different approach to the issue of enforceability if it arose in the latter context. 23. i am also unimpressed by the submission that regulation 18 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 151CompCas583(Gauhati)
..... not so identifiable, then, no act of his, serious or otherwise, was the act of the company itself.104. the contribution of lord diplock in shaping the concept of criminal liability, as expressed in tesco supermarkets ltd. (supra), cannot be ignored. lord diplock described the changing scenario of the corporate business transactions, and the fallout thereof, in the following words ..... for a felony or for crimes involving personal violence? however, since the pronouncement of the decision, in brimingham and gloucester ry. co. (supra), the law, as regards the corporate criminal liability, developed further and came to take, somewhat concrete shape in director of public prosecutions v. kent and sussex contractors ltd. reported in  14 comp cas 133 :  ..... the knowledge and acts of its officers and agents shall not be attributed to the corporation.43. the 19 american jurisprudence 2d (paragraph 1434), while dealing with the subject of criminal liability of corporations, states as under:lord holt is reported to have said (anonymous, 12 mod 559, 88 eng reprint 1164) that 'a corporation is not indictable, but the ..... complex organisation, which is assimilated into the preexisting individualistic framework of the law by pursuit of fiction and analogy with a natural person.56. in order to trigger corporate criminal liability for the actions of the employee (who must generally be liable himself), the actor-employee who physically committed the offence, must be the ego, the centre of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
..... how wise the new rule that the court adopts today may be, i believe it is an amendment only congress may enact. if i were fashioning a new test of criminal liability, i would require proof of a specific purpose to violate the law, rather than mere knowledge that the defendants' agreement has had page 438 u. s. 475 an adverse effect ..... to dispose of the contentions with respect to that point in this case. i do not find it necessary to decide the intent which congress required as a prerequisite for criminal liability under the sherman act, because i believe that the instructions given by the district court, when considered as a whole and in connection with the objections made to them, are ..... the second type of intent. [ footnote 21 ] in so holding, we do not mean to suggest that conduct undertaken with the purpose of producing anticompetitive effects would not also support criminal liability, even if such effects did not come to pass. cf. united states v. griffith, 334 u. s. 100 , 334 u. s. 105 (1948). we hold only that this elevated standard ..... conduct. indeed, the type of conduct charged in the indictment in this case -- the exchange of price information among competitors -- is illustrative in this regard. [ footnote 16 ] the imposition of criminal liability on a corporate official, or for that matter on a corporation directly, for engaging in such conduct which only after the fact is determined to violate the statute because of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
..... serious consequences might result from a comparatively minor offence, and no actual harm or injury would be caused to anyone even by commission of a serious offence. the parameters of criminal liability are well settled, and the law treats certain offences to be more serious than some others, not because the harm caused by those offences would be more than that would ..... liability and criminal liability was also not recognized. all the wrongful acts fell in the same category. even when a distinction between criminal liability and civil liability was started to be recognized, the gravity or seriousness of the wrong would depend only on the result or consequences ..... under section 304a of the indian penal code and not in respect of an offence punishable under section 304 of the ipc. 33. in a primitive society, the parameters of criminal liability were depending only on the harm or damage caused by the wrongful act. in fact, in the early days of civilization, the distinction between civil ..... offender about the possible danger or risk involved in his rash or negligent act, is implicit even in the penal liability u/s. 304 a of the ipc. in fact, if there would be no such knowledge, there would be no criminal liability ?? even under section 304 a ipc ?? at all. the 'knowledge contemplated by section 299 is of a different nature and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC86; (2004)1CompLJ21(SC); 2004CriLJ1221; (2003)184CTR(SC)193; 2003(157)ELT369(SC); 263ITR550(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC99; 2003(7)SCALE530; (2003)11SCC405; 4
..... provided for corporate crimes and there is a specific provision that the amount of fine should be increased if they are less than the ill gotten gains. (see article -- corporate criminal liability : a comparative perspective by guy stessens in vol.43 (1994) international & comparative law quarterly page 493.)62. section 276c and 277 of the act provide both substantive sentence ..... take away the only means of effectually controlling the subject-matter and correcting the abuses aimed at.'53. in 19 american jurisprudence 2d para 1434 dealing with the topic on criminal liability of corporations it has been stated as under:'lord holt is reported to have said (anonymous, 12 mod 559, 88 eng reprint, 1164) that 'a corporation is not ..... reluctantly disagree with the view of my learned brother mathur, j., i respectfully agree with the view of my learned brother srikrishna, j. and add as follows :-7. corporate criminal liability cannot be imposed without making corresponding legislative changes. for example, the imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment. such legislative changes took place in australia, france (penal code of ..... organization, which is assimilated into the pre-existing individualistic framework of the law by pursuit of fiction and analogy with a natural person.5. in order to trigger corporate criminal liability for the actions of the employee (who must generally be liable himself), the actor-employee who physically committed the offence must be the ego, the center of the corporate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 143CompCas573(Delhi); 147(2008)DLT552; 2008(101)DRJ370
..... either in discharge of their statutory or official duty.' the supreme court proceeded to affirm the view expressed by the high court that no criminal liability would be attached in those circumstances.13. reverting to the case on hand, the offences with which the petitioners are sought to be charged ..... without reference to their precise role at the time of the commission of offence would not be sufficient to attach criminal liability to them. the inevitable conclusion is thereforee that the criminal proceedings against these directors are unsustainable in law. accordingly the fir no. 972 of 1998 registered at police station ..... filed in terms of section 156(3) or section 200 of the code of criminal procedure, the magistrate is required to apply his mind. indian penal code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the managing director or the directors of the company when ..... under the companies act 1956 have been placed on record. these remain uncontroverter.11. in maksud saiyed (supra) the law pertaining to the liability of the individual director under the ipc for the offences committed by a company has been explained by the supreme court in the following manner: ..... the company is a principal accused. there is no provision in the ipc similar to section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 attaching liability to the person in charge of the affairs of the company where the company is a principal accused.5. while directing notice to issue .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1522; JT2009(1)SC48; 2009(4)KarLJ369; 2009(I)OLR(SC)475; 2008(16)SCALE347; 2009AIRSCW1024; 2009(1)LHSC131; 2009(3)KCCR2027; 2009(2)AIRKarR345
..... is well settled that section 34 of the indian penal code does not create a distinct offence: it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability. the necessary conditions for the application of section 34 of the code are common intention to commit an offence and participation by all the ..... act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. the essential constituent of the vicarious criminal liability prescribed by section 34 is the existence of common intention. if the common intention in question animates the accused persons and if the said common ..... to whether the appellants can be convicted under sections 302/34. like sections 149, section 34 also deals with cases of constructive criminal liability. it provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that ..... intention, therefore, has relevance only to the offence and not to the right of private defence. what would be an offence by reason of constructive liability would cease to be one if the act constituting the offence was done in exercise of the right of private defence. 23. for the aforementioned ..... no overt act is required to be attributed to the individual accused but then before a person is convicted by applying the doctrine of vicarious liability not only his participation in the crime must be proved but presence of common intention must be established. it is true that for proving formation .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj2973; 81SCL260(Raj)
..... pertain to departmental enquiries in the administrative sphere of the government, cannot be applied to an adjudicatory proceedings relating to a violation of a fiscal law vis-a-vis the criminal liability for an economic offence. hon'ble supreme court in shambhu dayal agarwala v. state of west bengal and anr. : 2scr987 had the occasion to consider a' matter relating to ..... , learned assistant solicitor general appearing for respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the proceedings before the departmental authorities are only adjudicatory in nature and so far as the criminal liability of the petitioner is concerned, they shall be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction where complaint under section 56 of the fera has been filed. present writ petition which ..... defence being prejudiced because it shall then give an opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacunae in their case so as to improve its version to fasten the criminal liability on the petitioner. in order to buttress his arguments, shri s.s. hora, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgments of the hon'ble supreme court in ..... against the petitioner as well as others on 31.5.2002.3. case now set up by the petitioner is that apart from the various provisions of fera providing for criminal liability, there are also provisions for departmental adjudication of penalty. such provisions find place in sections 50 and 51 of the fera. section 50 provides that if any person contravenes the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006ACJ2181; 119(2005)DLT509
..... witness saying that the electric connection of the factory did not have earthling and, thereforee, the petitioner must be held responsible for the offence. the difference between the civil liability and the criminal liability for negligence has to be clearly understood. the petitioner who was not present at the spot and in whose factory a worker died on account of electric shock is ..... d. bhatt v. the state of gujarat, : 1972crilj727 has been cited, which i find is applicable to the facts of the case and if followed relieves the petitioner of any criminal liability. it has to be seen that the petitioner was actually not present at the spot. he did not either provide the tullu pump to the workman or fix the wire ..... that there is some evidence of absence of earthling of electric lines, the connection between the incident and the default of the petitioner is too remote to bring about any criminal liability. 3. the petition is accordingly allowed. the charge framed against the petitioner vide the impugned order dated. 27.6.2003 is hereby set aside. the petitioner is discharged .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)1GLR767
..... this judgment the provisions of sections 17a, 17b and 17c of the rent act have been considered. these sections give protection to the tenant and creates civil as well as criminal liability on the landlord even after the decree is passed under section 13(1)(hh) of the rent act.55. it is no doubt true that at the time of institution ..... tenement, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. the said clause provides for criminal liability in addition to the civil liability in case the landlord fails to comply with the provisions of section 17c. thus, sufficient safeguards are provided for tenants who are to be evicted from the demised ..... sub-section (3a) of the said section without any reasonable excuse or fails to comply with the order of the court under sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to his liability in execution of the order under sub-section (2), on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both .....Tag this Judgment!