Question

Corporate Criminal liability is well established in India and clarified by Supreme Court in various decisions. Which among the following cases is not relevant to the topic?

• A. Standard Chartered Bank v. Director of Enforcement (2005)
• B. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of India (2015)
• C. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2011)
• D. G. J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019)

Hint:

The three key Supreme Court cases establishing corporate criminal liability are Standard Chartered, Iridium, and Sunil Bharti Mittal.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Let's analyze the relevance of each case to corporate criminal liability.

Standard Chartered Bank v.
Director of Enforcement (2005): A landmark case where the Supreme Court held that a corporation can be prosecuted for offenses that require both imprisonment and a fine.

Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
CBI (2015): Established the principle that the criminal liability of a company's directing minds (like a director) cannot be automatically imputed to the company, and vice-versa, without specific evidence.

Iridium India Telecom v.
Motorola Inc.
(2011): Held that a corporation can be held liable for offenses involving mens rea (a guilty mind).

G.
J.
Raja v.
Tejraj Surana (2019): This case is not relevant to corporate criminal liability in general.
It deals with a specific issue under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning whether a drawer of a cheque can be prosecuted for dishonor if they had issued a 'stop payment' instruction to their bank.
Therefore, the G.
J.
Raja case is not relevant to the general topic of corporate criminal liability.