Directors Are Not Automatically Vicariously Liable For Forest Offences; Complaint Against Three Quashed

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had refused to quash a complaint filed by the Range Forest Officer alleging offences under Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 in relation to uprooting of trees in Sector‑113, Gurugram. The appellants challenged the cognizance taken and the issuance of process against three company officers under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the complaint did not disclose any personal criminal liability against the three individual appellants and quashed the complaint and the order taking cognizance. The Court observed that "there is no vicarious liability that can be attached to any of the directors or any office bearers of the company" and emphasised that "Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question." The Court found that the lower courts proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the appellants were liable merely by virtue of their positions and that there were "no allegations worth the name" to show their personal involvement.

Background The dispute arose from Forest Crime Report No. 079/495 dated 2‑9‑2021 lodged by the Range Forest Officer, Gurugram, alleging that 256 trees and several plants were uprooted or destroyed at Sector‑113, Gate Vida, Gurugram using a JCB, causing a quantified loss to the forest department. The complainant filed a complaint in the Special Environment Court, Faridabad; the Presiding Officer issued process on the basis that "this court is of the opinion that a prima‑facie case is made out against the accused." The complaint named three individuals who at relevant times were officers or senior employees of entities holding development licences for the area; the company itself was not made an accused.

The appellants sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which rejected the petition on 8‑12‑2022. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the plain reading of the complaint disclosed the commission of an offence by the individual appellants under Section 4 and the penalty provision in Section 19 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The Court analysed the statutory scheme and criminal jurisprudence on vicarious liability, relying on precedents including Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. and passages emphasising that vicarious criminal liability must be expressly provided by statute and requires specific averments attributing personal conduct and intent to officers. Finding the complaint to contain only vague allegations against the individuals and no specific acts or mens rea attributable to them, the Court held that the issuance of process was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and the complaint and the cognizance order were quashed. The Court clarified that the department remained at liberty to proceed against the company if it considered that the company had violated licence conditions or other regulatory obligations.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11 OF 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 7464/2024) Case Title: SANJAY DUTT & ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate