Facts in the Case
- A is a supplier registered under a state law.
- During A’s absence from the country, his servants committed offences punishable under the Act.
- The servants were prosecuted along with A for the offence.
- A challenges the prosecution, arguing that since he was abroad, no mens rea (guilty mind) can be attributed to him for the servants’ acts.
- The prosecution contends that A is also liable under the law.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A can be held liable for the offences committed by his servants during his absence.
- Whether mens rea can be attributed to A in such circumstances.
- What is the scope of vicarious liability or liability of principal for servants’ acts under the statute.
Principles Applied
1. Mens Rea and Liability
- Criminal liability generally requires mens rea (guilty intention or knowledge) along with actus reus (guilty act).
- If A was absent and had no knowledge or control over the servants’ actions, attributing mens rea to him is problematic.
2. Vicarious Liability
- Certain statutes impose vicarious liability on principals for acts of their servants or agents, regardless of mens rea.
- Liability arises if the statute expressly or impliedly holds the principal responsible for servants’ acts.
- This is common in regulatory or strict liability offences.
3. Judicial Precedents
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 321
- The Supreme Court held that absence of mens rea absolves a person from criminal liability unless the offence is one of strict liability.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
- Established that liability for servants’ acts depends on the nature of the offence and statutory provisions.
Judgment / Legal Position
- If the statute under which the offence is charged imposes strict or vicarious liability on the supplier, A may be held liable even without mens rea.
- If the statute requires proof of mens rea against the accused, A’s absence and lack of knowledge would likely exonerate him.
- Prosecution must establish that A had control, knowledge, or consented to the servants’ unlawful acts.
- In absence of such proof, the liability should rest with the servants who committed the offence.
