Case at a Glance
The CBI charge-sheeted a BARC medical officer and Sanofi India for an alleged conspiracy to supply medicines at inflated rates and in excess quantities, alleging a wrongful loss of ₹3,53,361 to BARC and gratification of ₹42,750 to the officer. No employee of Sanofi was arraigned. The company argued that it could not be prosecuted for a mens rea offence without any natural person being identified. The Supreme Court dismissed its appeal, holding that non-identification and non-arraignment of a natural person cannot by itself justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC. It also laid down a three-stage framework for deciding when a person’s act and state of mind are those of the company itself, and directed that the judgment be sent to all High Courts.
Sanofi India, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, supplied products through tenders for the Rare Materials Project at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2015–16. A CBI FIR of 2015 alleged that a Scientific Officer (Medical) at BARC conspired with pharmaceutical companies to purchase medicines at inflated rates and in excess quantities. The 2017 charge-sheet named the officer and the company for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Sections 11, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging a wrongful loss of ₹3,53,361 and gratification of ₹42,750 paid to the officer, with the company accused of abetting it.
No official or employee of the company was arraigned. After the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru took cognizance, the company moved the Karnataka High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing that a company can conspire only through natural persons. Relying on Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., the High Court held on 15 February 2019 that companies can be liable even for offences requiring mens rea and that the matter needed trial. The company appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can criminal proceedings for a mens rea offence against a company be quashed only because no natural person acting for it has been identified and arraigned, and how is a guilty mind attributed to a company?
From ‘Directing Mind’ Labels to a Three-Stage Attribution Test
The Court began from the settled position that corporations can possess mens rea, recalling that Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement removed immunity for companies where imprisonment is mandatory, and that Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. recognised corporate mens rea without explaining how it is attributed — calling the ‘alter ego’ passage there “an empty vessel, yet to be filled”. It traced English law from Lennard’s Carrying Company v. Asiatic Petroleum Company through Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass and Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission to the Barclays cases and recent UK reforms. Rejecting the many labels, it asked one question: when is a natural person’s act and state of mind the company’s own? Its answer is a three-stage test — whether the constitutional documents or company law vest the power in that person; whether the power was delegated “accompanied by discretion and independence in the doing of that act”; and whether a special rule of attribution is needed for the statute’s purpose. The inquiry is transaction-specific, status alone is not enough, and the framework “has no bearing on the liability of the natural person concerned”.
Turning to the case, the Court held that identifying a natural person is not a threshold requirement; it goes to the strength of the prosecution, which is a matter for trial. The rulings in Aneeta Hada and Hindustan Unilever, requiring arraignment of the company, apply only where liability is vicarious and the statute sets a condition precedent, as Section 141 of the NI Act does, whereas corporate liability here is direct. At the quashing stage, the allegations must at least prima facie show that some natural person acted on the company’s behalf, that the act relates to the offence, and that the circumstances do not make mens rea “patently absurd or inherently improbable”; bald allegations unsupported by material may still be quashed. On a prima facie reading of the charge-sheet, these conditions were met. The Court added that making corporate liability easier is for the legislature, pointing to failure-to-prevent offences such as Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and called for a systematic study of corporate criminal liability in India.
What the Court Actually Held
- Non-identification and non-arraignment of a natural person cannot, by itself, justify quashing criminal proceedings against a company under Section 482 CrPC.
- A natural person’s act and state of mind are attributed to the company under a three-stage test: power vested by the constitutional documents or company law, delegation with discretion and independence, and any special rule of attribution needed for the statute’s purpose.
- At the quashing stage, the material must prima facie show a natural person acting for the company in relation to the offence, in circumstances where mens rea is not patently absurd or inherently improbable; on that test, the charge-sheet against the company survived.
- The appeal was dismissed and the Registry directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles that companies cannot escape prosecution merely because investigators did not charge any employee.
- It gives Indian courts a structured test for attributing knowledge and intention to companies, filling a gap left by earlier decisions.
- It distinguishes direct corporate liability from statutory vicarious liability under provisions like Section 141 of the NI Act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Companies
- Do not assume a case will be quashed because no director or employee is named; the question is left for trial.
- Internal delegation and authority structures will matter in deciding whose mind is the company’s.
- Bald allegations with no supporting material can still be challenged at the quashing stage.
For Counsel
- Map the company’s constitutional documents and delegations to the specific transaction alleged.
- Distinguish vicarious-liability statutes (where arraigning the company and officers is a condition) from direct corporate liability.
- Argue the three prima facie conditions in para 196 when seeking or resisting quashing.
Key Takeaways
- A company can face trial for a mens rea offence even if no employee is arraigned.
- Attribution follows a three-stage, transaction-specific test; status alone is not enough.
- The Section 141 NI Act line of cases on arraigning the company applies only to vicarious liability.
- CBI case against Sanofi over BARC medicine supplies continues.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a company be prosecuted without any of its officers being named as accused?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that failure to identify and arraign a natural person does not by itself justify quashing; whether such a person’s mind can be attributed to the company is a matter of evidence at trial.
How does a court decide whose guilty mind is the company’s?
Through a three-stage test: whether the company’s constitutional documents or company law vest the power in that person, whether it was delegated with discretion and independence, and whether the statute’s purpose needs a special rule of attribution.
Can such a case still be quashed?
Yes, if the allegations are bald and unsupported, or do not show prima facie that some natural person acted for the company in relation to the offence in circumstances making mens rea plausible.
Conclusion
The judgment moves Indian law beyond the slogan that companies ‘can have mens rea’ to a working method for attributing it, while keeping individual liability separate. For prosecutors and companies alike, the focus now shifts to who had authority and discretion over the transaction in question.
Practical takeaway: A company seeking quashing must show the allegations fail the prima facie test of para 196 — the mere absence of a named employee in the charge-sheet will not be enough.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com