RESEARCH PAPER ON

VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW- JUDICIAL

APPROACH.

FOR THE SUBJECT OF 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE II

SUBMITTED BY-

BHAKTI KHULE

PRN 18010323037

DIV A BA LLB

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOLL HYDERABAD

IN THE MONTH OF-

NOVEMBER, 2020

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF-

MR. SATYANARAYANA CHUKKA

1
 (FACULTY INCHARGE)

CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “Vicarious Liability under the Indian Criminal Law- Judicial Approach”
submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad for Criminal Procedure Code- II as part of
Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Mr.
Satyanarayana Chukka in the month of November, 2020.

The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged. I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

BHAKTI KHULE

Signature of the Candidate Signature of Faculty-in-Charge

2
Date: 03rd November 2020 Date: 03rd November 2020

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to Mr. Satyanarayana Chukka Sir
for his enlightening lectures on Criminal Procedure Code. I would also like to express my sincere
gratitude to our teaching staff for guiding me the path towards gaining knowledge. I would like
to thank the Library Staff of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad as well for their co-operation. I
would also like to thank my batch mates and seniors who inspired, helped and guided me in
making this project. I am grateful to some of my seniors/friends as well.

BHAKTI KHULE

Signature of the Candidate

3
Date: 03rd November 2020

INDEX

SR. NAME OF THE TOPIC PAGE NO.

NO.
1. CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Page no. 5

2. CHAPTER II - CONSTITUENTS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY Page no. 11

3. CHAPTER III- VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW Page no. 12

4. CHAPTER IV – VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER SPECIAL Page no. 14

STATUTES

5. CHAPTER V- VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE STATE Page no. 15

6. CHAPTER VI- POSITION IN INDIA Page no. 16

7. CHAPTER VII- LIABILTY OF CORPORATION FOR CRIMINAL Page no. 18

WRONG

8. CHAPTER VIII- CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS Page no. 19

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Page no. 20

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 

4
Until learning any of the socio-economic crimes punishable in India, let us know about the
general concepts on which criminal liability is imposed on an individual in our democracy.
Throughout this paper, we shall examine the very guiding principles which define the nature of
liability, the amount of liability for vicarious liability and the remedies thereof. We will begin
our analysis with laws pertaining to the various forms of Indian law liabilities, tracing their
origin and creation with respect to the common law contribution and the substantive
modification of the Code. We should also remember, by the way, the position of the rule on the
same form of mistake in civil law. Each of that would provide an understanding of Indian law,
whether it has adapted or departed from the English norm, and if it is the same provision of both
civil law and criminal law, or if there is some kind of infringement. A reference to the concept of
responsibility in civil law is important as criminal law has taken much from civil law. Liability is
a legal term that allows something to be done or not done to be subject to the authority of another
or to a rule of law. Thus, an individual who contracts to sell goods is responsible for delivering
them, and the consumer is liable to pay the price. When one is bound or has a duty towards a
statue to do anything, the same person can be coerced to do so by judicial procedure at the
discretion of anybody, that anybody is allowed to liable ro make the result. This whole process is
called subjection.1

A person is said to be liable when he or she is legally obliged to do something or suffer

something, or at least. Therefore, one may be said to be responsible for doing, charging, being
sued, being detained or otherwise being subject to any civil obligation or legal implications. In
general, liability attacks only on persons who are legally responsible, there is generally no
liability incurred by an insane person.

Vicarious liability, also known as the Latin term respondent superior, or imputed liability, is a
legal principle that attributes responsibility to a party which did not personally cause any sort of
harm but has a clear superior legal connection with the very person who caused harm. Originated
from Common English Law. This principle derives from the maxim, “Qui Facit per” “Alium
Facit per se”, meaning that the one who tend to do an act which is through another very to be
deemed to do any it by himself in law. The term ‘Vicarious Liability’ Constituents include.

1
DAVID M. WALKER, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO LAW (1980)

5
(1) There has to be a certain kind of relationship.

(2) The crime shall in a certain manner apply to the partnership.

(3) In the process of the job the error was made.2

An individual can be legally responsible for another's acts whether he or she is the very party to
the crime. For example, the driver vehicle is convicted of a store's armed robbery even when the
driver of the same vehicle did not enter the same car, and others have committed the whole crime
themselves. In civil law, the nature of vicarious liability is when a person might be found
accountable for the principal defendant who is tend to be the victim of any such crime whose
“actus reus” someone else is very physically liable or any committed. This is assumed that a
person who merely executes the “actus reus” on another's claim is not considered to be innocent,
and is hence therefore liable for the very given offence. The statute also reflects on the bond
between the criminal and the actual act actor and, by virtue of the arrangement, assigns the
latter's actions to the former.
At the outset, it should be stressed that form of criminal liability is tend much more an exception
to than the very law. The definition of the term vicarious liability is essentially a theory of
common law under which an employer is found liable for the neglect or violation of his workers'
responsibilities. In a few cases IPC departs from the very simple general rule on principle of
superior respondent. In the very case it was seen that, a Master was clearly held responsible for
actions committed by his agents or servants under different provisions of the IPC.
Under section 149 of the IPC, if any member of an unlawful assembly commits any crime to
achieve a collective intention, all the members who are related to unlawful assemble should be
help very responsible for committing any such offence. Section 154[3]says Unless any tenant or
owner having any sort interest in the piece of land does not notify the appropriate public
authority of unlawful assembly on that property, those actions shall also be held liable. Section
155[4] also renders an individual vicariously responsible to the property owner or tenant for the
negligence of their agent or manager if any crime occurs on the property and the agent or
manager does not prohibit any unlawful activity occurring on the land.

2
17, RATANLAL DHEERAJLAL, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

6
But under Civil law things are bit different, an act shall be considered to be performed in the
course of employment if the master grants the servant the power to give a unlawful act; or the
servant unlawfully commits a lawful act. In criminal law one can be held liable if:

· If a connection occurs between the wrongdoer and the other party.

· If the other party abides by the unjust act or error committed.

· As an individual that has made an error in such a relationship that it requires liability for
decisions or omissions of the other participant.

Many arguments to support the imposition of vicarious liability have been advanced:

1. The master's pockets are 'deepest.' For certain cases a defendant’s fortune or any sort of
facts he has full access to his own capital by any insurance has direct implicit impact on
developing the legal standards for same..
2. Vicarious liability develops or promotes avoidance of injuries by showing or giving an
individual financial stake in encouraging workers to take care of their safety and others as
well.
3. Because the employer tends to make a certain amount of profit on his workers' actions, he
will therefore cover the damages incurred by such actions.

In Lord Chelmsford's words: “It has long been known by statute that a master is liable to other
parties for any harm or damage incurred by the incompetence or unskillfulness of a servant
working under the service of his master”. “The explanation for this is that in the course of his
service, any act performed by the servant is assumed to be performed by the order of his master,
and therefore it is the same as if it were the act of the master himself.”3

While the idea of vicarious responsibility is a civil term, it has also played a significant part in
criminal jurisprudence in a recent scenario. This is also fine to some degree, but any case
determined for vicarious liability under criminal law should be driven by simple logic and
sufficient facts to define the claim as just, equitable and reasonable.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 

The following are the objectives that will be fulfilled:

3
“MICHAEL A JONES, TEXTBOOK ON TORTS (2000)”

7
  To understand the meaning and concept of vicarious liability and its prominent role in
prosecutions and criminal trails.  
 To analysis the term liability and its major role and different types of law.
 To outline the nature, scope and ambit of vicarious liability and to know the different
ambits where they can be used.
 To understand the line of differences between the criminal vicarious liability and the civil
vicarious liability.
 To understand the impact of vicarious liability and the remedies provided for the same.
 To understand in brief the section 149 of Indian Penal Code, which deals with the
liability.
 To understand the application of the vicarious liability of the state.
 To critically analyse few of the recent landmark judgement on the criminal vicarious
liability. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

1. What does the term vicarious liability mean?

2. What are liabilities of the amount related vicarious liability?
3. What are the remedies for the vicarious liability?
4. What are the differences between criminal vicarious liability and civil vicarious liability?
5. What are the major drawn similarities between criminal vicarious liability and civil
vicarious liability?
6. What can be the judicial approach to the vicarious liability in the criminal law?
7. What are the liability of Corporation for criminal wrongs?
8. What are the constituents of the vicarious liability?
9. How many different provisions are available for vicarious liability under special
statutes? 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

8
The study technique adopted by the scholar is Doctrinal Analysis approach as this paper contains
numerous concepts and legislative rules and criminal code regulations, as well as constitutional
articles from the Indian Penal Code, as well as some details relating to the subject "Vicarious
liability under criminal law."

Account is taken of secondary sources such as study paper, papers, posts, precedents. Researcher
chose to gather secondary data as it provides the context and acts as a preface to other primary
information sources.

Doctrinal Research: The study used doctrinal analysis as the pre-existing legal framework such
as court decision and the other relevant regulatory provisions were also carefully analyzed.

Qualitative Data: These statistics is collected from specific institutions in order to clarify the idea
of scientific evidence and its effect on litigation, criminal prosecution and the end outcome. The
subject of evidentiary admissibility has always been dealt with but not in depth.

CHAPTERIZATION 

9
1. Introduction 

The researcher would discuss the very basic fundamental and the meaning of the term
liability. Along with its scope and nature and why does it comes to use. Further, the
researcher would also explain so as what are the reasons for the vicarious liability.
2. Constituents of Vicarious liability 
The researcher here will discuss, what are the major components which constitute the
whole concept of vicarious liability? 
3. Vicarious liability in Criminal Law
Here, the researcher will explain so as why the person is held liable for the vicarious
liability along will the provisions and the various section laid down by the Indian penal
code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Vicarious liability under Special Statutes  
Here the researcher would explain the various different doctrine of vicarious liabilities
which are available for special enactments, along with few detailed explained case laws.
5. Vicarious liability of the state 
Researcher would discuss so as to very what extend the very term administration is held
to be liable for any there for the torts committed by any country or a state.
6. Position in India
Here we will discuss, how did this provision grow in India and what are the development
it made, also where does it stand so as now in the present time. To explain everything
clear, the researcher will quote few landmark judgements. 
7. Liability of Corporation for Criminal wrong 
Here, all the liabilities that the person is bound to after committing any sort of criminal
wrong would be explained along with the case laws. 
8. Conclusion and suggestions 
Here the researcher will fit into the whole concept of the research paper as the reader gets
the crux of the issue and will also show the emerging importance of this field in the law
as well as the results of the critical evaluation of the case structures and laws.

10
CHAPTER II- REASONS FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND
CONSTITUENTS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

As the very basis for the imposition of the term vicarious liability, many arguments have been
advanced:

(1) “The master's pockets are the deepest. In certain cases, a defendant's income, or the fact that
he has access to capital through insurance, has had an unconscious impact on the creation of
legal concepts.”

(2) “Vicarious liability facilitates the avoidance of injuries by granting the employer a financial
interest in motivating its workers to take care of other people's welfare.”

(3) “As the manager makes a profit on his workers' operations, he can therefore suffer the
damages that are incurred by such activities.”

In Lord Chelmsford's terms, “It has long been established by law that a master is liable to third
persons for any injury or damage done through the negligence or un skillfulness of a servant
acting in his master‘s employ. The reason of this is, that every act which is done by servant in the
course of his duty is regarded as done by his master‘s order, and, consequently it is the same as if
it were master‘s own act”4

Vicarious Responsibility Constituents

(1) A connexion of a certain sort must exist.

(2) The unlawful act must be linked in a certain manner to the relationship.

(3) The wrong thing has been done in the course of practice.

4
“MICHAEL A. JONES, TEXTBOOK ON TORTS, 2000, p379”

11
CHAPTER III- VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW

If they are a party to the offence, a person may be criminally responsible for another's actions.
For example, even if the driver never entered the vehicle, and the whole theft itself was
committed by another, the driver of the get-away car is guilty of attempted burglary of a shop. In
criminal law, the nature of vicarious liability is that a party may be found accountable as the
principal defendant who is very the victim of the crime which actus reus is directly intentionally
committed by another person. “It is assumed that the person who merely commits the actus reus
on the basis of another person is not at all innocent and is thus it may also responsible for the
crime. Because of that arrangement, the statute also reflects on the relationship between the
defendant and the performer of the violent actions; it assigns the acts of the latter to the former.”
It should be stressed at the beginning that this type of liability is very much an anomaly rather
than a norm of criminal law. The definition of vicarious liability is essentially a precept of civil
law that a master is found responsible for neglect or violation of the duties of its workers.

In a few cases, on the principle of respondent superior, the IPC makes a deviation from the
general law. In the very case it was observed, a master is held responsible for actions committed
by his agents or servants under separate provisions of the IPC.5

 “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.”6
 “Section 154 holds owners or occupiers of land, or persons having or claiming an
interesting 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

5
GOUR HARI SINGH, THE PENAL LAW OF INIDIA, Vol II, 11t Ed., 2000, pp 1467-1472
6
Munivel vs. State of T.N. AIR 2006 SC 1761

12
 position as land-holders, 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.”7
 “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.”

7
“In certain cases, a fellow criminal may be liable for the acts committed by the other accused on the principle of
vicarious liability. Barker v. Levinson (1920) 2 All ER 823- a master isn‘t criminally liable for the acts committed
by his agents or servants in the course of employment in case such acts are outside the general scope of tat
employment”

13
CHAPTER IV- VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER SPECIAL STATUTES

Under the very special enactments decided, such as the ‘Protection of India Rules 1962’, the
‘India Army Act 1911’, the ‘Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act 1954’, the ‘Narcotics Act
1940’, etc., the doctrine of vicarious responsibility is most commonly invoked. A master shall be
held legally responsible for violations of the rules found in the above laws, provided that such
crime has been committed by his agent or servant during the term of work.

“The appellant, who was an employee, was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act 1954 for the master's practice of leaving adulterated oil in Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh8.”

Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State of Madras 9, in this very case it was held that, It was held that
while he had no knowledge of his servant's act, the licenced victualler was liable to be
prosecuted. “In dealings with case, Blackburn J observed ‘if we hold that there must be a
personal knowledge in the licensed person, we would make the enactment of no effect.” The
appeal was allowed in part, and although in both cases the conviction and the penalty levied on
the appellant on the first charge were annulled, the conviction and the sentence on the third
charge were upheld in the second instance.

8
“Ravula Hariprasad Rao v. State of Madaras, AIR 1961 SC 631. See also State of Orissa v. K Rajeshwar Rao AIR
1992 SC 240.”
9
Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State of Madras ,AIR 1951 SC 204

14
CHAPTER V- VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE STATE

“The term 'administration' is used synonymously with 'state' or 'government' here.” The degree
from which the very such administration will held to be responsible for the acts performed by its
workers or the staff is a difficult issue, specially where in developed nations and states with ever-
expanding state operations. “The government's responsibility for corruption is regulated by the
principles of public law derived from British Common Law and the Constitution's provisions.”

The entire definition of the State's Vicarious Responsibility for the wrongs done by its servants is
based on three principles:

· “Superior answer (let the principal be responsible).”

· “Quifacit per alium facit per se (it is himself who works by another).”

· Indemnity socialisation.

POSITION IN ENGLAND

The theory was "The King can do no wrong" in English Common Law, and thus the King was
not responsible for the wrongdoings of his servants. But the status of the old Common Law
theory was altered in England by the Crown Prosecutions Act, 1947. Earlier, in the contract of
employment, the King could not have been charged in tort either for wrongdoing allegedly
sanctioned by him or committed by his servants. The Crown Prosecutions Act was passed with
the increasing roles of the nation, now the crown is responsible for a tort perpetrated by its
servants much as a private citizen. Similarly, the Federal Torts Claims Act, 1946 in America
presents the rules that substantially determine the issue of State responsibility.

15
CHAPTER VII- POSITION IN INDIA

We do not have any constitutional requirements that mention the duty of the State in India,
unlike the Crown Prosecutions Act, 1947(England). “Before 1858, the law in India concerning
the State's responsibility for the tortious actions of its servants became intertwined with the
essence and character of the role of the East India Company.” The course of evolution of the
legislation on this issue, as described in “Article 300 of the Constitution”, must, therefore, be
traced.10 As mentioned in “Article 300 of the Constitution”, the status of “State liability” is like
pursuant to: first, Article 300(1) of the constitution states that the “Government of India” can
bring lawsuits on behalf of the Union of India and, secondly, that “the Government of the State”
shall bring lawsuits on behalf of the State; Second, that, in the same situations as the Dominion
of India and the subsequent Regions or the subsequent “Indian States”, the Government of India
or the Government of a State may bring lawsuits in reference to their specific affairs, whether
this Constitution hadn't even been instituted; Thirdly, the second law referred to above is
governed by any clause which may be rendered by “an Act of Parliament” or of the “Legislature
of that State”, imposed by reason of the rights granted by the very known Constitution.

Consequently, in order to consider the liability parameters of the administration today, the extent
of liability of the East India Company must be uncovered, since “the liability of the
administration today is in direct succession to that of the East India Company.” As a strictly
commercial business, “the East India Company” started its career in the very India, but
eventually gained sovereignty. Therefore, the firm didn't really enjoy the Crown's immunity at
the start. It was only after political powers were gained that a difference between sovereign and
non-sovereign roles was made.

“State of M.P. v. Chironji Lal”11, in a case where it was illegal and unjustified by statute, a new
issue arose before the court about the award of damages for the injury suffered by the police's
lathi-charge. It was argued that the police knowingly and without fair cause resorted to lathi-
charge and thus destroyed the property of the appellant.
10
“LIABILITY OF THE STATE IN TORT, LAW COMMISSION OF India, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-
50/report1.pdf”
11
“State of M.P. v. Chironji Lal , A.I.R 1981 M.P. 65.”

16
Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar12, An significant concern was presented about government
responsibility for wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Justice Bhagwati, heading in the direction
of a new level of the right to life and personal rights, said: “Why should the court not be prepared
to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of
the precious fundamental rights to life and personal liberty.” It should be noted that there is no
convention ratified by the Government of India allowing for compensation for unjust arrest and
imprisonment. This amply shows the absence of the government's regard for the precious
interests of the people in order to discount their own inefficiency and lawlessness.

“Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar”13, in this very case it was suppose to be held that, the most
relevant concept of justice for the very wrong conduct of its very tend official was laid down by
“the Supreme Court against the Government” of Bihar for the unjust and unconstitutional
imprisonment of “Rudal Shah in Muzaffarpur” prison for up to 14 years after he was acquitted
by the Sessions Court in June 1968.

Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das14, In the present case , the Supreme Court held that
the duties of the State concern not only the defense of the nation or the administration of justice,
but also many other fields, such as education, business, social , economic , political, etc. It is not
necessary to claim these actions are linked to sovereign authority.

The body wanted to be made accountable in all the cases mentioned earlier is not the executive,
but the State. It can well mean, as far as the government is concerned, that the legislative body is
neither liable nor subordinate to it. Therefore, for the repercussions of an incorrect order made by
a constitutional body, the government will not be visited. As long as the State is concerned, as
the law is passed by the Legislature, it cannot bring out any such plea.

12
“Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627”
13
“Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141”
14
“Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 465”

17
CHAPTER VII- LIABILTY OF CORPORATIONS FOR CRIMINAL
WRONG

“The doctrine of vicarious liability” usually accepts that a very person might be obligated to
respond to someone else's actions. Similarly, in very particular case of companies, the
organisation can be responsible for the conduct of its staff, agents, or any entity to whom it is
accountable. Originally developed in the form of tortious liability, the doctrine of vicarious
liability was imported into criminal law, where such crimes were effectively absolute offences of
liability.15

“Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union”16, in this matter the very court tend to
held that, there is no question that a company is entitled to be acknowledged disciplined for
disobeying the orders of responsible courts directed against it by the application of a fine and
sequestration for contempt. “In fact, an order to a company is a command to those formally
responsible for the conduct of its affairs.”

However, in place of these treating the topic “as one of vicarious liability”, the very courts have
puzzled across to the all theoretical complexities of ascribing a corporation's criminal intent. It
has been consistently claimed that, by their own existence, companies are unable to commit such
offences as bigamy, perjury, robbery, and murder. However, the courts have now come to the
position of accepting that businesses can be accused of offences involving any sort of criminal
intent.

15
“V.K.AGGARWAL, CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY — THE ISSUE REVISITED IN THE CONTEXT
OF RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION”
16
“Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, AIR 1970 SC 1767”

18
CHAPTER VIII- CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

As a general rule, an employer should be found responsible for the crime of his employee only if
the participant is under the laws controlling them. It is a part of our belief that it is the work of
the judiciary rather than of Parliament to enforce vicarious liability. In terms of laws, sometimes
statutes state that one person is responsible for the crime of another. However, it is suppose to be
more common for all the various courts to detect those intentions in laws, for example. A
justification most often advocated and foreseen by the judiciary for making a man responsible
under all the vicarious obligation is that if he were not held liable, the law would be considered
nugatory and the will of Parliament thus undermined. It may seem very strange for the courts to
be willing, on grounds of expediency, to enforce responsibility for the conduct of another if the
basis of criminal law is that a person can be held responsible solely for his personal misdeeds.
“But in some situations, in order to protect the rights of all sides, i.e. the wounded and the
defendant, and to avoid the blame game between the theory and its subordinate, it becomes more
necessary to make the principal still responsible for the act of his underling.”

It can be arrived at the conclusion that although the principle of vicarious liability is a civil
premise, under criminal jurisprudence it has also taken a broad role in a recent scenario. It is also
nice to some degree, but any case determined on vicarious liability under criminal law should be
directed by simple rationality and reasonable facts in order to define the test as just, equitable
and equitable.

Of violent cases, the state also has vicarious responsibility. In addition, the concept of vicarious
liability, while not expressly defined in any legislation, is well settled by the laws of the court.
“According to American Realism, which focuses on judge-made rules, vicarious responsibility in
criminal wrongs is very well founded pursuant to Article 141(law proclaimed binding from all
courts by the Supreme Court) by the judgments enacted there under Indian Constitution.”

19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
1. DAVID M. WALKER, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO LAW (1980)
2. 2, GOUR HARI SINGH, THE PENAL LAW OF INDIA (2000)
3. 4, KD GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW:CASES AND MATERIALS (2005)
4. 15, POLLOCK, TORTS
5. MICHAEL A JONES, textbook on TORTS (2000)
6. 9, N.D. BASU, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2001)
7. 17, RATANLAL DHEERAJLAL, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ONLINE
9. LIABILITY OF THE STATE IN TORT”, NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW
THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION 
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b1-13.htm
10. LIABILITY OF THE STATE IN TORT, LAW COMMISSION OF India,
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/report1.pdf
11.  V.K.AGGARWAL, CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY — THE ISSUE
REVISITED IN THE CONTEXT OF RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION
http://www.icsi.edu/webmodules/Programmes/33NC/CORP.CRIMINALLIABILITY.pdf 

20