In a revisional application, the High Court of Calcutta considered the maintainability of criminal proceedings against directors of a company under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged wrongful occupation of land.
The criminal proceeding against the petitioners (directors) was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI (CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
CRR 42 of 2022
| STATE | TANDRA PAL & ORS. VS. OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. |
|---|---|
| For the Petitioners | : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arnab Saha, Adv. Mr. Suman Mazumdar, Adv. Mrs. Swarnali Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Sudhindra Das, Adv. |
| For the State | : Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Arjun Chowdhury, Adv. |
| For the O.P. No. 2 | : Mr. P.P. Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Sandip Guha Roy, Adv. |
| Hearing concluded on | : 1stSeptember, 2023 |
| Judgement on | : 8thSeptember, 2023 |
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:
2
3
Achinta Ghosh, S.D.P.O. Naxalbari, Darjeeling was entrusted by the Superintendent of Police, Darjeeling to investigate into the case.
4
contended by Mr. Bhattacharyya that key expression in the statute that requires attention in order to press the provision of law into services is wrongfully.
5
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities – (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets such land transferred;
6
(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises interferes with the employment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom.
(h)xxxx (i)xxxx (j)xxxx (k)xxxx (l)xxxx (m) xxxx (n) xxxx (o) xxxx (p) xxxx (q) xxxx (r) xxxx (s) xxxx (t) xxxx (u)xxxx (v)xxxx (w)xxxx (x)xxxx (y) xxxx
Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to any action taken in discharge of a public duty;”
7
grandfather to come and say that possession of the land was taken against the will of the grandfather of the de-facto complainant namely, Khasru Oraon. It is equally not possible for the grandson to say that possession was obtained without the consent of his grandfather wrongfully.
4SCC 530 held :-
“6. There is no dispute that a company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences. Although there are earlier authorities to the effect that corporations cannot commit a crime, the generally accepted modern rule is that except for such crimes as a corporation is held incapable of committing by reason of the fact that they involve personal malicious intent, a corporation may be subject to indictment or other criminal process, although the criminal act is committed through its agents.”
19. Hon’ble Apex Court in MAKSUD SAIYED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 held :-
“13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate
8
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 the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.”
(2015) 4 SCC 609 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held :-
9
(SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be maintained against individual directors without arraying the company as an accused.
Whether vicarious liability of directors can be imputed automatically in the absence of statutory provision fixing such liability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶40
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 530 · Who else cites this
Maksud Saiyed vs. State of GujaratReferred¶43
Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668 · Who else cites this
Sunil Bharati Mittal vs. CBIReferred¶47
Sunil Bharati Mittal vs. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Tandra Pal & Ors.
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
