KALYANI v. JANAK C. MEHTA & Ors.

they committed any criminal breach of trust. So far as "' allegations in regard to commission of the offence of forg-. ery were concerned, the same was made only against the respondent No.3 and not against the respondent No.2. Sending a copy thereof to the National Stock Exchange 8 without there being anything further to show that the re spondent No.2 had any knowledge of the fact that the same was a forged and fabricated document would not -"( constitute offence. Allegations contained in the FIR were for commission of offences under a general statute. A vi carious liability can be fastened only by reason of a pro- C vision of a statute and not otherwise. For the said pur pose, a legal fiction has to be created. A penal statute must receive strict construction. If a· person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In D any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the Company as well as the person responsible for the acts of the Company [Paras 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28] (1266-G; 1267-D, F, G, H; 1268-A; 1271-A; 1271-G, H) ~. E •