A, as a supplier registered under a state law was away from country. During his absence, his servants violated the statute, which is an offence punishable under the Act. The servants were prosecuted along with A for the offence. The supplier challenges the prosecution on the ground that he was away from the country and no Mens rea can be attributed xO him for the acts of the service. The prosecution contended that the supplier was also made liable under the law. Decide.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court held that absence of mens rea absolves a person from criminal liability unless the offence is one of strict liability.

Established that liability for servants’ acts depends on the nature of the offence and statutory provisions.

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.