The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sanofi India Limited, refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising from a CBI chargesheet. The court ruled that a company can be prosecuted even when specific employees are not named as accused.
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that an offense can be made out and proceedings continued “irrespective of identification” of specific natural persons, rejecting Sanofi’s contention that proceedings should be quashed solely on the ground of non-identification of individual accused.
The case involves allegations that Sanofi supplied medicines to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mysore between 2012 and 2015 at inflated prices. The CBI claims that a BARC employee conspired with the company to manipulate procurement decisions and overcharge the government.
In a detailed 98-page judgment, the Court clarified that a company can be prosecuted for offences requiring intent on the basis of direct attribution, distinguishing this from vicarious liability provisions. The Court directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts, underscoring its intended reach as a guiding statement of law on corporate criminal liability.
Importantly, the Supreme Court made no finding of guilt against Sanofi India and has not adjudicated on the actual merits of the case. The ruling establishes a structured test for both attribution and threshold quashing in corporate criminal cases, providing a framework for prosecuting companies in corruption and economic-offense matters without requiring the identification and arraignment of individual officials at the threshold stage.
Written by: Pramit Hazra
Graphics by: Pramit Hazra
