16. In so far as the second limb of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thermax Limited and others Vs K. M. Johny and others ( supra) that the concept of vicarious liability is unknown to criminal law, except where it is so provided in specific statues. In the present case, the Magistrate was called upon to consider the allegations pertaining to offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 406 of the IPC. It was expected that the Magistrate would examine as to whether specific allegations were made against the individual directors and the managing director who were arrayed as accused persons. It was to be examined as to whether specific role was attributed to them to disclose an intention on their part from the very inception to cheat the respondent. A perusal of the complaint shows that even in paragraphs 13 to 17, reference is made only to petitioner no.1 and there is no attempt made to describe the role played by the petitioner nos.2 to 4 in order to attract criminal liability. A perusal of the impugned order would show that in paragraph 12, the Magistrate has simply recorded that the accused nos.1,2,3 and 4 are responsible for the business of the accused company and that therefore, there is sufficient ground to proceed against them. The question as to whether vicarious liability was sought to be foisted in the present case was not even discussed by the Magistrate. In this context, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindranath Bajpe Vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & others Etc. (supra) is relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to earlier judgments in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited, 2013 (4) SCC 505 and Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015)4 SCC 609 and thereafter, it has been held as follows:
