The Jharkhand High Court in the case Aseem Sood @ Asim Sud vs. State of Jharkhand observed and has held that the vicarious liability cannot be imposed against an accused-Manager of the company, when the role of the accused-Manager has not been mentioned in the complaint petition and the same has not been disclosed during the solemn affirmation or through the enquiry witness.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in the case observed and has allowed a criminal writ plea moved wherein it is alleged to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking the cognizance being passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur as stated under section 406, section 420 and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the present case, the complaint was filed against two accused persons, wherein it is alleged that the accused approached the complainant in January 2010 with an offer to be there the sales distributor for the newly launched of the herbal and personal care products in the Jamshedpur region. Thus, the complainant was promised promotional commission and for the timely payment, the same being for the reimbursement of damaged or unsold stock. Which being based on these assurances, the said complainant has agreed in order to become the sales distributor.
The bench of Justice Dwivedi in the case observed and has also pointed out that the complainant had admitted in his solemn affirmation that a certain amount had already been paid. Further, the bench held that the ingredient of cheating which being within the intention of cheating from the very beginning is not being made out in view of the definition of cheating as stated under section 415 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Further, it has also been held by the bench of Justice Dwivedi that the role of these petitioners was not stated in the complaint plea moved and neither the role was being disclosed in the solemn affirmation as well as by the enquiry witnesses and in that view of the said matter the vicarious liability cannot be fastened on any of these two petitioners.
Accordingly, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order.