The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3566 of 2016, CRLMC No.3114 of 2018 & CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 (In the matter of applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) CRLMC No.3566 of 2016 Md. Seraj Yusha ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa (Vigilance) and Others ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Das, Standing Counsel, Vigilance CRLMC No.3114 of 2018 Vineet Agarwal & another ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa (Vigilance) ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. B.S. Tripathy 1, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Niranjan Maharana, Additional Standing Counsel, Vigilance CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 Omi Bagadiya ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa (Vigilance) & others ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Das,Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Niranjan Maharana, Additional Standing Counsel, Vigilance CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 15.05.2024 : Date of Judgment: 20.06.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. 1. The present proceedings have been drawn invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C) with prayers to quash the charge sheet No.42 dated 29.09.2014 filed by the respondents under Sections 13(2) r/w Page 2 of 23 Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the P.C. Act”) r/w Sections 379/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 409/411/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in T.R No. 53 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, which is emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated 13.04.2010 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act. 2.
Facts
The petitioners have further challenged the validity of the order of taking cognizance of offences from the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 06.11.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in pending T.R. Case No. 53 of 2015. 3. All the three petitions are being decided by way of this common judgment/order as all of them arise out of a common proceeding i.e. T.R. Case No. 53 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack. 4. The relevant admitted facts sans unnecessary details for the purpose of deciding the present petitions are discussed herein below: The Respondent lodged the F.I.R. No.25 of 2010 P.S. Vigilance,
Legal Reasoning
using forged Transit Permits would arise only, if it is prima facie proved by the opposite parties that the petitioners were required to procure the Transit Permits in the first place and that the petitioners themselves have transported the Iron Ore by using forged documents. The Investigating Agency has completely failed to bring any material in that regard. 15. The charge-sheet fails to whisper about any overt act of the petitioners in transportation of the Iron Ore Fines other than stating that they received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port. The charge-sheet does not bring out iota of evidence to establish any kind of nexus of the petitioners or for that matter the Companies/ Firms in which the petitioners are Directors/Partner/Manager either with the drivers of the truck or with the transport Companies, neither the charge-sheet attempts to show any relationship between the petitioners and the Accused No.1 or Accused No.2. 16. On the canvas of aforementioned fact scenario illuminating on the record the parties are heard on the issue regarding criminal liabilities of the petitioners. Page 16 of 23 17. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners by relying upon various provisions of MMDR Act and Companies Act have contended that from the allegation made by the prosecution and the material available on record even if taken on its face value no mens rea could be attributable to the petitioners being the Directors/ Partner/ Manager of the Companies/Firms to which the Iron Ore was transported. The petitioners have strongly relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Crl. M.P. No.1238 of 2018 titled as “Smt. Geeta Devi Agarwal and others Vs. State of Orissa” to substantiate the aforementioned point. To buttress their argument regarding the criminal liability of the Director in the case of similar nature they have also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609. Learned Senior Counsels have emphasized on the paragraphs-42 and 43 of the said judgment which reads as under: (iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person 42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, Page 17 of 23 it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. This extract is taken from Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI,: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 18 at page 638 43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon para 9 of the judgment of Hon’ble Suprme Court in “Sham Sundar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1989) 4 SCC 630” which reads as under: “9. But we are concerned with a criminal liability under penal provision and not a civil liability. The penal provision must be strictly construed in the first place. Secondly, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold. Section 10 does not provide for such liability. It does not make all the partners liable for the offence whether they do business or not.” While relying upon Muksud Sayed vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668, the learned counsel emphasized on para 13 : “13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the Page 18 of 23 complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” 18. On the strength of the ratio of aforementioned judgment, learned Senior Counsels have contended that the petitioners cannot be made vicariously liable even if the Company is involved in the alleged crime. However, in the instant case, even if the prosecution story is taken as it is Directors of the Companies cannot be made as an accused. 19. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has contended that in view of the complicated facts involved in the case, it is inevitable to subject the petitioners to trial so as to separate grain from the chaff. Therefore, the learned counsels submit at this stage, while exercising the plenary jurisdiction, this Court should not scuttle the trial. To buttress their arguments, learned Counsels relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. J. Jayalalitha reported in (2017) 67 OCR (SC) 796. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “the concept of corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commerce and not to commit crime or defraud people and thus when the corporate character is employed for the Page 19 of 23 purpose of committing illegality of defrauding others, the court ought to ignore the corporate character and scan the reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate orders to do justice between the parties.” By relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 1128, UP Polution Control Board vs. Modi Industries and others., the counsel for the opposite parties contends that the petitioners are trying to hide behind corporate veil. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held that: “it would be travesty if a big business house of M/s Modi Industries ltd. is allowed to defeat the prosecution launched and avoid the trial on technical flaws which is curable for their alleged deliberate and willful breach of provisions contained in Section 25(1) and 26 made punishable under section 44 read with 47 of the Act.” 20. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned Counsels for the opposite parties is that, if a crime is committed by any Partner or Member or Director of a Firm/Company, they should not be allowed to hide behind corporate veil rather which is oppose to public policy, therefore, corporate veil in such case is liable to be pierced. Page 20 of 23 21. In principle the contentions raised by both the parties are correct, however, in the instant case that is not the test. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia stating that no case is made out against the petitioners even if the evidence collected and relied upon by the investigating agency are taken on its face value to be true. On the basis of the said test, I have gone through the charge- sheet and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioners. The evidences so collected are disjuncting the petitioners’ role in the commission of the crime. The investigation is completely jumbled up and not an iota of evidence is brought on record to rope the petitioners in the present case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, wherein it is held that if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Therefore, in the aforementioned circumstances Page 21 of 23 subjecting the petitioners to trial in the present case would be a futile excise in the absence of any material available on record against them. 22. In that view of the matter, subjecting the petitioners to trial on the strength of the available material would be a futile exercise on the part of prosecution. Therefore, while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the prosecution. However, quashing of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners on the available material as of today shall not preclude the learned Trial Court to invoke section 319 Cr.P.C in the event materials comes on record against the petitioners during the course of trial. 23. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed and the charge- sheet No.42 dated 29.09.2014 filed by the opposite parties under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections 379/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 409/411/120-B of IPC in T.R. No.53 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, which is emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated 13.04.2010, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and the consequential Page 22 of 23 proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in all the three cases are quashed. ……………… S.S. Mishra (Judge) The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 20th June, 2024/ Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jul-2024 11:47:08 Page 23 of 23
Arguments
Cuttack alleging that one Smt. Shantilata Behera, had purchased one 10 Page 3 of 23 wheeler truck under Hypothecation/Lease Agreement with Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., which was registered with the Registering Authority (M.V.) Cuttack with Registration No. OR-05-AA-1869 (hereinafter referred as “Offending Vehicle”). Since, Smt. Shantilata Behera could not pay the monthly installments of repayment of the vehicle loan, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. took possession of the offending vehicle and put it on auction to recover the loan amount. One Susanta Kumar Bal purchased the offending vehicle in the auction and thereafter sold the offending vehicle to One Surendra Jain of Kolkata (W.B.). Shri Surendra Jain brought the offending vehicle to Cuttack for the purpose of repair and regularization of the papers of the vehicle at RTA, Cuttack. Shri Surendra Jain stayed at Jasmine Hotel at Cuttack which was owned by Shri Prasant Kumar Patra (Accused No.1). It is stated in the F.I.R. that the Accused No.1 in connivance with Sri Dhaneswar Nayak (Accused No.2), who was posted as Traffic Inspector, Office of RTO, Cuttack enticed Shri Surendra Jain to get the repair work of the offending vehicle done at one Chagala Garage at Sikharpur, Cuttack. Page 4 of 23 When the offending vehicle was taken to the said garage, Accused No.2 suddenly arrived and seized the offending vehicle under the charges of non-payment of statutory charges/ taxes and on the charge of driving the vehicle without requisite documents and permits. Exploiting this situation, Accused No. 1, Mr. Patra struck a deal with Surendra Jain to purchase the offending vehicle for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- for which cheques were issued by Accused no. 1 to Surendra Jain. The said cheques were dishonored on presentation. When Surendra Jain confronted with the Accused No.1 about dishonoring of the cheques, Accused no. 1 asked him to come to Cuttack to take cash in lieu of the cheques. Once, Surendra Jain came to Cuttack, he got to know that Accused No.1 was plying the offending vehicle and when Surendra Jain failed to receive any satisfactory response from Accused No.2 about plying of the offending vehicle, he reported the same to the Vigilance Department leading to lodging of the F.I.R. by the respondent Vigilance Department naming Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 only in the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, it came to the light that the offending vehicle which the Accused No.1 was plying in connivance Page 5 of 23 with the Accused No.2 was used for transporting of Iron Ore Fines from various places to Paradeep Port for export. The investigation further revealed that the Transit Passes which were used for the purpose of transporting the Iron Ore Fines were forged and the said Transit Passes were never issued by the Mining Department. The petitioners herein are Directors/Partners of Exporter Company/ firms of Iron Ore Fines and they allegedly purchased/ procured Iron Ore Fines from Intermediaries’ Companies/firms and received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port. The said Intermediaries firms have used the offending vehicle and forged transit passes to transport the Iron Ore fines to Paradeep Port. The relevant details of alleged instances of transportation of the Iron Ore Fines to the petitioner’s company/firms are extracted in tabulated form hereinbelow:- Transit Pass No. A025109 (Forged Transit Pass) A025139 (Forged Transit Pass) Name of Consigner T.P. Book No. 25157 M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. Name of Consignee Name of Career owner M/s GNG Exports Bajrangbali Roadways, Rourkela. 25158 -do- -do- -do- Page 6 of 23 T.R Chemical Ltd. Bagadiya Brothers Ltd. (P) 30624 Scan Steel Ltd. Serajuddin Pvt. F. Exports Ltd. Om Transport 2590 -do- -do- P Patra A024918 (Forged Transit Pass) A024910 (Forged Transit Pass) A474001 (Forged Transit Pass) After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid down by the investigating authorities under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections379/467/468/471/409/411/120-B of IPC, against 11 persons including the present petitioners as accused. The specific role attributed to the petitioners herein are discussed as under:- CRLMC No. 3114 of 2018 5. The Petitioners in CRLMC No. 3114 of 2018 namely Shri Vineet Agarwal and Shri Prakash Agarwal have been arrayed as Accused No. 8 and Accused No.9 respectively in the aforesaid charge-sheet. The role attributed to the aforesaid accused persons in the charge-sheet is that M/s. G.N.G. Export–202 Lords 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata – 700071 a partnership firm dealing with export of Iron Ore fines. The partners of Page 7 of 23 the said firm are Shri Praveen Agarwal, aged about 38 years, S/o. Late Gajanan Agarwal, Shri Veenet Agarwal, aged about 33 years, S/o. Late Gajanan Agarwal and Smt. Geeta Agarwal, W/o. Late Gajanan Agarwal of 2/1 ANB Bardwan Road, Kolkota. Shri Prakash Agarwal, DOB- 04.05.1981, S/o. Sri Rambhagat Agarwal of 5/7/Bara Shrutala Road, Kolkota 38 is the Manager of GNG Exports. The investigation revealed that GNG Exports has received a quantity of 45.480 M.T. of Iron Ore fines from one M/s. Jay Iron and Steel Ltd. vide Transit Permit bearing Transit Pass No.A-025109 Book No.25157 dtd. 4.2.2010 showing transportation of the said quantity of Iron Ores fines through Truck No.0R-05AA-1869. Similarly, the said firm had received a quantity of 42.820 M.T. of Iron ore fines from the consigners M/s. Jay Iron and steel Company Ltd. vide Transit Permit bearing No. A-025139, Book No. 25158 dtd. 9.2.2010 through the same truck. But the investigation revealed that both the Transit Passes were forged transit pass as informed by the Dy. Director, Mines, Rourkela that no Transit Pass Book bearing Transit Pass No.A025109 and A- 025139 issued to M/s. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. The handwriting expert also opined that the said two Transit Passes Page 8 of 23 are forged. But from the daily unloading report maintained by their Stevedores M/s. J.N. Buxi it was found that on 07.02.2010 they have received a quantity of 45.480 M.T. of Iron Ore fines through Transit Pass No. 025109 and Truck No.0R-05 AA-1869. CRLMC No. 3157 of 2018 6. The Petitioners in CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 namely Omi Bagadiya has been arrayed as Accused No.10 in the aforesaid charge-sheet. The role attributed to the aforesaid accused person in the charge-sheet is that M/s. Bagadiya Brothers is a Private Ltd. Company having its Registration No.U5110107 2002 PTC 022248 and its Head Office at Bagadiya Mansion, Ground Floor, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Chhatisgarh. The Directors of the Company are Shri Omi Bagadiya, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Kishore Lal Bagadiya, 2) Om Prakash Agarwal, 3) Shri Prakash Raheja, 4) Shri Ananda Agarwal and 5) Mr. Anurag Agarwal. The Area Manager of M/s. Bagadiya Brothers is Shri Sanjay Bansal, DOB-1.7.1974, S/o. Late Jayaprakash Bansal of KK-42 Civil Township, Rourkela, Tel. No.9937046047, who is actually looking after the export of Iron ore fines. The investigation revealed that the said company has Page 9 of 23 received a quantity of 38.360 M.T. of Iron Ore Fines vide Transit Pass Book No. as A-024918 and the said quantity of Iron Ore was transported from T.R. Chemicals Ltd., Barpali to the said company at Paradip Port. Shri Sanjay Bansal failed to produce any invoice showing purchase of such quantity from T.R. Chemicals. But the record of their Stevedores clearly shows that a quantity of 38.360 M.T. of fines was unloaded by them at Paradip Port which was subsequently exported. The Dy. Director, Mines, Rourkela during investigation clearly stated that no such Transit Pass Book bearing Transit Pass No.A-024918 has been issued to T.R. Chemicals. Further, the handwriting expert’s opinion revealed that the said transit pass is a forged one. CRLMC No. 3566 of 2018 7. The Petitioner in CRLMC No. 3566 of 2018 namely Md. Seraj Yusha has been arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the aforesaid charge-sheet. The role attributed to aforesaid accused person in the charge-sheet is that M/s. F. Serajuddin Exports Private Ltd. is a registered company dealing with Export of Iron Ore from Paradeep Port incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Corporate Identity No.U131000R2007 Page 10 of 23 PTC 009611 2007-2008 and its address is Plot No.N-2/158, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. The Directors of the said company are (1) Sheraj Yusha, S/o M. Yusha of N/4/135 IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar and the others. The investigation revealed that during the month of March 2010 i.e. the company had received Iron Ore Fines of 39.220 M.T. from M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. vide Transit Pass No.2590/25/2010 and Pass No.A-4740001 which were issued on 8.3.2010 and also received 40.220 M.T. of Iron Ore Fines from M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. vide Transit Pass No.2590/25.2.2010 and Pass No.A- 024910 which was received by the said company on 15.03.2010. During the investigation, both the Transit Passes found to be forged as ascertained from the Deputy Director Mines Office, Rourkela that such books bearing the aforementioned two Transit Pass Nos. were never used to M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. Further the handwriting opinion has also been received that both the Transit Passes are forged. Further during examination, Shri N. Seraj, Managing Director of F. Serajuddin Exports (P) Ltd. could not able to produce any invoice of M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. showing sale of such quantity to them. The Iron Ore Fines received Page 11 of 23 through such forged Transit Passes has been exported by the said company and thereby earned pecuniary gain. The much could be said regarding the casual manner in which the investigation has been carried out although the petitioner namely Md. Seraj Yusha is implicated in the present case as Directors of the Company but he has been shown to be a public servant. 8. Perusal of the charge-sheet further indicates certain other facts contained in the charge-sheet which are necessary to be discussed for holistic approach to decide the issue in lis. The opposite parties have relied upon the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses to indicate that M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. has sold the Iron Ore Fines to M/s JBS Energy, Paradeep on account of M/s F. Serajuddin Exports Pvt. Ltd. using the offending vehicle for the purpose of transportation of the Iron Ore and the payment has also been made by the M/s JBS Energy to M/s Scan Steel Ltd. M/s. F. Serajuddin Exports Pvt. Ltd. has also made the agreement with M/s. JBS Energy for supply of Iron Ore Fines. Similarly, M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. sold and transported Iron Ore Fines to M/s. Page 12 of 23 GNG Exports, M/s T. R. Chemical sold and transported Iron Ore Fines to M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 9. It is very much clear from the above narrated facts that the accused/petitioners are Directors/Partners/Managers of the export companies/firms, which have purchased Iron Ore Fines from other traders, who have transported the Iron Ore Fines and delivered the same using the offending vehicle to Paradeep Port. 10. At this juncture, it is important to consider Rule 10 of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules 2007 which provides that any person who is transporting the minerals need to apply and obtaining transit permits from the Competent Authority after complying with the requisite conditions. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the transporters or sellers of the Iron Ore. They are consignee of the Iron Ore, who took the delivery at Paradeep Port from the seller/transporters. As per the prosecution’s own story the Officials of the respective transporter have admitted that they have transported Iron Ore. It is important to take note of the fact that despite long drawn Page 13 of 23 investigation the respondents have not been able to collect the material to implicate the sellers/transporters and therefore, none of the transporters have been arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet. 11. Interestingly, the investigation remained inconclusive about who has transported the Iron Ore Fines by using the offending vehicle under the forged Transport Permits, although the name of the drivers who have transported the Iron Ore have been mentioned by the respondent in their charge-sheet. Apart from that, another crucial factor to be considered is that the prosecution has arrayed officials of M/s. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., M/s. T.R. Chemical Ltd. and M/s Scan Steel Ltd. as witnesses, who have admitted in their statements that their Companies have transported the Iron Ore Fines to Paradeep Port at storage yards of respective Companies of the petitioners. Moreover, the charge-sheet also does not disclose any material to connect the petitioners with Accused No.1 or 2, who are alleged to have the possession of the offending vehicle during the relevant period. The prosecution only relies on the fact that the export Companies/Firms received the Iron Ore Fines at Paradeep Port being Page 14 of 23 transported by the offending vehicle, which in considered opinion of this Court is not enough to prosecute the accused petitioners. 12. The other very important aspect of the case is that all the exports have been done by companies or firms who have been managed by various other individuals in their respective capacity as Directors/ Partners/Managers. The opposite parties have implicated only the petitioners as accused. The opposite parties have neither implicated the company nor other individuals although in the charge-sheet itself, the names of other Directors/Partners are found mentioned. The charge-sheet is further silent about the overt acts of omission or commission attributable to the petitioners. 13. Therefore, it is to be tested as to whether in the facts of the present case the petitioners could be prosecuted under the principles of vicarious liability. 14. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that whether the petitioners used forged Transit Passes for the purpose of transportation of the Iron Ore is a matter of trial. However, in the considered opinion of this Court issue of petitioners Page 15 of 23