VICARIOUS LIABILITY

UNDER CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION
Vicarious liability is a legal theory of liability that allows the court to hold a person
accountable for acts he or she did not directly committed.
In a criminal context, vicarious liability assigns guilt, or criminal liability, to a person for
wrongful acts committed by someone else.
Vicarious Liability has generally been rejected in criminal law.
However some of the sections of Indian Penal Code is an exception to this basic
principle.
In the context of criminal law, it has been considered unjust to condemn and punish
one person for the conduct of another without reference to whether the former was at
fault of what occurred.
Vicarious liability can be seen in the corporate criminal cases which are increasing day
by day.

WHAT IS VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur
any liability for the acts done by others.
In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person
for the act of another person, may arise.
So Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is liable for the acts
of others.
It is based on the principle of qui facit per se per alium facit per se, which
means, He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it
himself
Criminal vicarious liability violates the basic precept that individuals should
be criminally accountable for their own conduct, not the conduct of others.

Essentials to constitute vicarious liability:

Relation
Ratification
Course of Employment

VICARIOUS CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATIONS IN INDIA

Corporations are considered to be an integral part of the society.

But over a period of time, the development of the society has had a direct
influence on the structure and functions of the corporation.
This had led to an ever increasing demand for the law to recognize the
change and suit its applications.
The word Corporation has no strictly technical or legal meaning.
A corporation is an artificial entity that the law treats as having its own legal
personality, separate from and independent of the persons who make up the
corporation.

 The corporations are run by natural persons and these peoples actions can
be criminal in nature and can sometimes even result in great economical as
well as human loss to the society.
Although it was early said that a corporation could not commit a crime, this
view has been rejected.
Argument has even supported the opposite extreme that a corporation
should be held guilty of any crime if its human agents who commit it so act
that their conduct is within the course of their employment as tested by the
standards applied to tort liability.
It has been affirmed repeatedly that corporations by their very nature are
incapable of committing such crimes as bigamy, perjury, rape, and murder.
But courts have now progressed to the position of recognizing that
corporations can be guilty of crimes involving criminal intent.

INDIAN PERSPECTIVE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW

In many cases a master is held liable under various sections of the IPC for acts committed
by his agents or servants.
Section 149 provides for vicarious liability, it states that if an offence is committed by any
member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or such as the
members of that assembly knew that the offence to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing that offence was
member would be guilty of the offence committed.
Section 154 holds owners or occupiers of land, or persons having or claiming an interest in
land, criminally liable for intentional failure of their servants or managers in giving
information to the public authorities, or in taking adequate measures to stop the occurrence
of an unlawful assembly or riot on their land. The liability on the owners or occupiers of land
has been fixed on the assumption that such persons, by virtue of their position as landholders, possess the power of controlling and regulating such type of gatherings on their
property, and to disperse if the object of such gatherings becomes illegal.

 Section 155 fixes vicarious liability on the owners or occupiers of land or persons
claiming interest in land, for the acts or omissions of their managers or agents, if a riot
takes place or an unlawful assembly is held in the interest of such class of persons.
Section 156 imposes personal liability on the managers or the agents of such owners or
occupiers of property on whose land a riot or an unlawful assembly is committed.
Section 268 and 269 explicitly deals with public nuisance. Under this section a master is
made vicariously liable for the public nuisance committed by servant.
Section 499 makes a master vicariously liable for publication of a libel by his servant.
Defamation is an offence under this section.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER SPECIAL STATUTES

The doctrine of vicarious liability is more frequently invoked under special
enactments, such as Defence of India Rules 1962, The India Army Act 1911,
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, The Drugs Act 1940, etc.
A master is held criminally liable for the violation of rules contained under
the aforesaid statutes, provided that his agent or servant, during the course
of employment, committed.

CONCLUSION
Hence, from this research paper, it can be concluded that the concept of
Vicarious liability has generally been rejected in criminal law.
It can also be concluded by saying that though principle of vicarious liability
is a civil concept yet in a recent scenario it has taken a wide role under
criminal jurisprudence too.
To a certain extent it is good also but every case decided under criminal law
for vicarious liability should be guided by basic rationality and clear evidence
in order to classify the test of just, fair and equal.