Summary
Following a guest’s fall at Hyatt Regency, the Court quashed proceedings against the hotel company’s managing director because his corporate position and general decision-making did not establish personal criminal responsibility. The general manager’s negligence prosecution remained for trial, but the smoking-law charge against both appellants was quashed. The Court also upheld directions permitting appearance through counsel, and preserved independent findings on the surviving charges after trial.
Issues
- Whether general allegations based on corporate office justified prosecuting the managing director for criminal negligence.
- Whether the general manager’s role and the alleged smoking-area violation warranted quashing.
- Whether the High Court could permit appearance through counsel under its inherent powers.
Provisions considered
- Section 4 and proviso, Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003The allegations about allowing smoking on this terrace did not make out the charged offence against either appellant; there was no allegation that the hotel lacked a separate smoking area altogether. (¶ 33)
Held
- Criminal responsibility was not imposed vicariously by corporate designation alone. Absent a statutory provision, personal involvement with the requisite criminal intent had to be supported by specific allegations. Chairing meetings, signing decisions and authorising a licence application did not connect this managing director to the alleged negligence. (¶¶ 27–30, 34–35)
- The general manager stood differently because allegations concerned responsibility for daily operations and safety. His absence abroad and arrangements for discharge of his duties required trial; the police status report could not resolve negligence at the quashing stage. (¶ 31–32)
- The smoking-law charge disclosed no offence against either appellant on the allegations presented and was quashed as to both. (¶¶ 33, 37–38)
- Permitting appearance through counsel subject to directions for personal attendance lay within the High Court’s inherent powers. The complainant’s challenge to that direction failed. Observations on quashing did not bind the Trial Court’s independent merits findings after trial. (¶¶ 36, 39–41)
Result
All proceedings and summoning order quashed as against managing director Shiv Kumar Jatia. General manager Aseem Kapoor’s appeal partly allowed only as to section 4 COTPA; negligence charges remain for trial. Complainant’s appeals dismissed; trial merits preserved.