This article has been written by Varsha Thapa of 2nd year B.B.A. L.L.B. studying in Army Law College,Pune.
Introduction
A person can be criminally liable for the acts of another if they are a party to the offense. For instance, the driver of the get-away car is guilty of the armed robbery of a store even though the driver never left the car, and the entire robbery itself was committed by others. The essence of vicarious liability in criminal law is that a person may be held liable as the principle offender that is the perpetrator of a crime whose actus reus is physically committed by someone else. It is believed that person merely performing the actus reus on the say of another is not innocent and thus is also made liable for the offence. The law sometimes focuses upon the relationship between the Due to the relationship between the defendant and the person who carried out the bodily acts, the latter’s actions are attributed to the former. It should be made clear right away that this kind of criminal culpability is very much the exception rather than the rule. Vicarious responsibility is primarily a civil law notion that holds employers accountable for the negligence or duty violations of their workers.
Perspective in India
On the basis of respondent superior, IPC occasionally deviates from the general rule. In this situation, a master is accountable for the actions of his agents or servants under several IPC sections. According to Section 149, everyone who at the time of the offence was a member would be guilty of the offence committed if it were committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common object of the assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew that the offence was likely to be committed in furtherance of that object.
According to Section 154, landowners, occupiers, and those with or claiming an interest in land are criminally responsible for the willful neglect of their employees’ duty to inform public authorities or to take appropriate action to prevent an unlawful assembly or riot from occurring on their property. The obligation placed on landowners or occupiers is predicated on the idea that these people have the authority to control and regulate these types of gatherings on their property and to disperse if the gatherings’ goals change and become illegal.
If a riot breaks out or an unlawful assembly is held in the interest of this group of people, Section 155 holds the owners, occupiers, or those claiming interest in land vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of their managers or agents.
The managers or agents of such owners or occupiers of property on whose land a riot or an unlawful assembly is committed are subject to personal liability under Section 156. Public annoyance is specifically covered under sections 268 and 269. A master is held vicariously accountable under this clause for any public disturbance caused by a servant. A master is held vicariously accountable under Section 499 for any libel that his servant publishes. A violation of this section is defamation.
Special statutes under vicarious liability
Under specific laws, such as the Defence of India Rules 1962, the India Army Act 1911, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, the Drugs Act 1940, etc., the idea of vicarious liability is more frequently used. If a master’s agent or servant violated a regulation outlined in the aforementioned legislation while performing their employment duties, they could face criminal charges.
Cases related to vicarious liability
- HDFC Securities ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, 2017
The IPC does not allow for vicarious liability for any claimed corporate criminal activity. If and when a statute intends to create such a legal fiction, it expressly states so in NI Act 1881. The Managing Director or the Directors of the Company are not subject to vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code where the Company is the defendant.
- Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangat Rane, 2015
The accusations made against the managing director in his individual role seem to be completely undefined. If a complainant wants to include the managing director or another officer of the company, they must make the necessary allegations to establish vicarious liability.
Conclusion
Vicarious liability refers to situations in which one person is held responsible for the actions of another. Qui facit per se via alium facit per se, which states that “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself,” serves as its foundation. As a result, in a situation involving vicarious liability, both the person ordering the act and the person ordering it are responsible.
References