When Accused Dies, Criminal Proceedings Comes To An End; Liability Does Not Pass On To Others: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court held that when an accused person dies while criminal proceedings are still pending, the case against them comes to an end. Under criminal law, liability for criminal acts is personal and does not pass on to others.

The Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking for quashing of the criminal complaint wherein the two petitioners have been made as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 45S (1)(i) and 45S (1)(ii), read with section 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934

The Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice K. Sujana observed, “When an accused person dies while criminal proceedings are still pending, the case against them comes to an end. Under criminal law, liability for criminal acts is personal and does not pass on to others. The principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea — meaning an act alone does not make one guilty unless done with a guilty mind — underscores the personal nature of criminal responsibility. Once the accused is no longer alive, the Court cannot continue the trial, as punishment or exoneration can only be applied to a living individual.”

Case Brief

The Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking for quashing of the criminal complaint wherein the two petitioners have been made as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 45S (1)(i) and 45S (1)(ii), read with section 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934.

It was contended that the petitioners have been receiving deposits from the general public in total violation of Section 45S of the RBI Act. The allegation was that the petitioners have accepted deposits from the general public contrary to the aforesaid provision of the RBI Act. The total outstanding deposit liability is only Rs.5.33 crores for payment, of which the petitioners have been holding the amount in the Escrow account with Union Bank of India since a long time.

The Interlocutory Application was filed praying for dropping of the criminal cases, at this juncture, on this very ground itself as any further continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an exercise in futility. Further, it was also contended that CH. Ramoji Rao was the Karta of the HUF and HUF lacks legal identity under the RBI Act and given that he was the sole person who alleged to have committed irregularities under the RBI Act, thus, the criminal proceedings should automatically be dropped upon his death.

Court’s Analysis

The issue before the Court was whether in the light of the death of CH. Ramoji Rao, would the complaint case and the proceedings thereon, or the criminal proceedings initiated based on a complaint survive any further or not?

The Court noted that the allegation was primarily that the accused persons had received huge deposits from several members of the general public, the accused were allegedly receiving deposits from the general public with good yearly returns, such receiving of the deposits from general public were not permissible under the RBI Act, and which amounted to violation of the provisions of the RBI Act entailing criminal prosecution.

The Court said, “True it is that Chekuri Kiran Rao had got himself substituted in place of the deceased petitioner No.2 so far as contesting the instant two criminal petitions. What is more relevant is, what happens to the criminal case C.C.No.540 of 2008 where there has been no steps taken by the petitioners to get themselves substituted. Neither the complainant, nor the State Government have taken any steps to replace the deceased petitioner No.2 in the criminal case for its continuation to a logical end. In the given facts, if the Government, on one hand or the complainant on the other hand having not taken any steps for substitution and if the concerned Court proceeds with the criminal case it would be as if the criminal case is being proceeded against a dead person.”

The Court also noted that it needs to be appreciated whether the name of the legal heirs of the deceased has been mentioned anywhere in the records showing them also to be involved in the operation of business at the relevant point of time

Further, the Court emphasised that in criminal law in India, there is no concept of strict vicarious liability except where it is so provided under law or by judicial precedents. Thus, accountability for a criminal action is based upon a factual situation or incident prima facie established at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and proving it beyond doubt when it concludes.

“A proprietary concern, however, stands absolutely on a different footing. A person may carry on business in the name of a business concern, but he being proprietor thereof, would be solely responsible for the conducting of its affairs. A proprietary concern is not a Company”, added the Court.

The Court observed that the accused was the sole proprietor of the propriety concern, and according to accused, he is the Karta of the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family). In both scenarios, the criminal proceedings naturally abate upon the death of the accused during the pendency of the trial.

“It was contended that criminal proceeding initiated against the sole accused cannot transfer criminal liability to the next kin. This is particularly clear since from the beginning until his death, he remained the sole proprietor of the proprietary concern and none of his family members were involved in the business…When an accused person dies while criminal proceedings are still pending, the case against them comes to an end. Under criminal law, liability for criminal acts is personal and does not pass on to others”, the Court said.

The Court also observed that Criminal liability does not transfer to the next of kin or any member of the family. Unlike civil cases, where property or financial liability may be inherited, criminal proceedings are directed only at the person accused of committing the offense. However, if there are allegations that involve other individuals (including family members), those cases will proceed independently.

Accordingly, the criminal prosecution case against the petitioners is ordered to have abated.

Cause Title: Margadarsi Financiers And AnR V. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By its Authorised Officer

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddarth Luthra, Mr. S. Nagamuthu and K.V. Raman

Respondents: B. Rajeshwar Reddy for Government Pleader for the State of Senior Advocate A.P, L. Ravichander, Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy & B. Shiva Ram Sharma, for respondent No.2 , Advocate Palle Nageshwar Rao, respondent No.3, Advocate Aruna Kumar Vundavalli as respondent No.4.

Click here to read/download Order