Criminal Liability Of Corporate Directors In India
A. Overview
Corporate directors, by virtue of their managerial and fiduciary roles, may incur criminal liability for offences committed by the company or in relation to company activities. This liability is primarily based on:
Their role, knowledge, or consent in the commission of the offence
Statutory provisions imposing personal accountability
Judicial interpretations expanding or limiting such liability
B. Legal Framework
1. Companies Act, 2013
Sections relating to directors’ responsibilities and penalties (e.g., Sec. 149, 166 - duties of directors; Sec. 447 - fraud penalties)
Directors can be held criminally liable for fraud, false statements, misstatements in prospectus, failure to maintain statutory registers, etc.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Sec. 34 (Common intention)
Sec. 120B (Criminal conspiracy)
Sec. 420 (Cheating)
Sec. 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant or banker or agent) — applicable if directors act in fiduciary capacity
3. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Directors liable for bribery or corruption if involved
4. Securities Laws
SEBI regulations penalizing directors for fraud, insider trading, misreporting
5. The Information Technology Act, 2000
Cyber offences involving directors if they authorize or participate
C. Important Legal Principles
Directors can be held liable for acts done with their “consent, connivance or neglect.”
Vicarious liability is generally not imposed automatically; personal involvement or knowledge is key.
The “alter ego” doctrine: Directors may be treated as the face of the company.
Mens rea (criminal intent) must be proved except in strict liability offences.
Liability may extend to both executive and non-executive directors depending on the facts.
D. Landmark Case Laws Explaining Criminal Liability of Directors
1) Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) Supreme Court
Facts:
The Enforcement Directorate attached properties of Standard Chartered and its directors alleging violation of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act).
Legal Issue:
Whether directors can be held personally liable for corporate violations under FEMA?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held directors can be held liable only if they are personally responsible or involved in the contraventions, not automatically.
Significance:
Clarified the need for personal culpability before holding directors liable in corporate crimes.
2) Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) Supreme Court
Facts:
The company defaulted on payments; the question was whether directors could be held liable for company’s misstatements.
Legal Issue:
Are directors criminally liable for the acts of the company?
Holding:
Court held directors are liable if they actively participated or had knowledge of the wrongdoing. Mere status as director not sufficient.
Significance:
Set precedent that directors cannot hide behind corporate veil if they participate in fraud.
3) CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1980) Supreme Court
Facts:
Directors were held liable for tax evasion by the company.
Issue:
Whether directors are liable for corporate offences attracting penal consequences?
Holding:
The Court said that directors who are in control and management may be held liable for offences unless they can prove due diligence.
Significance:
Introduced “due diligence defence” for directors — they are liable unless they took all reasonable care.
4) SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd. (2012) Supreme Court
Facts:
Sahara company collected funds illegally from investors. SEBI held directors liable for fraud.
Legal Issue:
Liability of directors in securities fraud.
Holding:
Directors can be held personally liable for fraudulent fund-raising and non-compliance with SEBI regulations.
Significance:
Strengthened regulatory power to prosecute directors for financial mismanagement and fraud.
5) M.C. Chockalingam v. Union of India (1966) Madras High Court
Facts:
Director charged under IPC for criminal breach of trust related to company funds.
Holding:
The court held directors are criminally liable if they misappropriate company property or act dishonestly.
Significance:
Demonstrates directors’ fiduciary responsibility with criminal consequences for breach.
6) Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2016) Bombay High Court
Facts:
Directors alleged for involvement in environmental violations by the company.
Legal Issue:
Can directors be personally held liable for company’s regulatory offences?
Holding:
Court held directors liable for regulatory offences if proved they had knowledge or failed to exercise due diligence.
Significance:
Extended liability beyond financial crimes to regulatory compliance.
E. Summary Table: Grounds for Criminal Liability of Directors
| Ground for Liability | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Active Participation | Directors involved in planning or execution of offence | Niranjan Shankar Golikari |
| Consent or Connivance | Knowing consent to illegal acts | Standard Chartered Bank case |
| Negligence or Willful Default | Failure to exercise due diligence | CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. |
| Fiduciary Breach | Misappropriation or breach of trust | M.C. Chockalingam |
| Regulatory Violations | Violations of environmental, SEBI, or other laws | Kalpana Mehta case |
| Fraud and Misstatements | Fraudulent disclosures, false statements | SEBI v. Sahara |
F. Defences Available to Directors
Due diligence: Showing reasonable care and supervision
Lack of knowledge: Genuine ignorance or delegation
Non-involvement: Proving no participation or consent
Statutory exemptions: Certain offences may exclude directors
G. Practical Implications
Directors must maintain proper records and transparency.
Regular compliance checks and audits minimize liability risks.
Directors should ensure timely reporting of offences if discovered.
Training in corporate governance is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments