Supreme Court says criminal law should not be set in motion in absence of adequate probe

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday, 29 October, held that criminal law should not be set into motion in the absence of necessary and adequate investigation. A division bench of Justices RS Reddy and Sajiv Khanna said that vicarious liability is attracted when the offence is committed with the 'consent, connivance, or is attributable to the neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary, or other officers of the company'.

'Criminal law should not be set into motion on mere suspicion': Supreme Court

It is pertinent to note that under statutory provisions in the country, vicarious liability is the responsibility of an employer, resulting from the actions or abstinence of an employee.

"Criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course or without adequate and necessary investigation of facts on mere suspicion, or when the violation of law is doubtful," the Apex Court stated.

While quashing a criminal case against the director of a company, the Top Court held, "It is the duty and responsibility of the public officer to proceed responsibly and ascertain the true and correct facts. Execution of law without appropriate acquaintance with legal provisions and comprehensive sense of their application may result in a innocent being prosecuted."

Facts regarding the case

In the case at hand, the Bench held that it is the duty of the court to not issue summons in a mechanical and routine manner.

"It is the duty of the Magistrate to apply his mind to see whether on the basis of the allegations made and the evidence, a prime facie case for taking cognisance and summoning the accused is made out or not," the SC' bench said in a judgement passed on October 29.

The appeal has been filed by Dayle De Souza challenging an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed his plea seeking quashing of legal suit against the petitioner. Dayle, the director of Write Safeguard Pvt Ltd, had entered into a legally enforceable contract titled 'Agreement for Servicing and Replenishmetn of Automated Teller Machines' with NCR Corporation India Private Ltd.

Previously, the NCR Corporation had earlier entered into and agreement with the State Bank of India for maintenance and upkeep of the State Bank of India's ATMs. In February 2014, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), upon inspection of SBI ATMs, issued a notice alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Minimun Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 at the ATM.

In August 2014, the LBO filed a complaint before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who issued a available warrant against the appellant and Director of Madhya Pradesh unit Vinod Singh. Later, the MP High Court had dismissed the petitioner's plea which was seeking the quashing of the case.