Supreme Court outlines three-stage test for attributing mens rea to company

The case concerns whether criminal proceedings against a pharmaceutical company (Sanofi India Ltd.) for conspiracy and corruption can be quashed because no specific employee or director was identified and arraigned as an accused alongside the company.

Appellant: Sanofi India Ltd.; Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court framed the issue of whether the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellant company on the ground that no natural person had been identified and arraigned alongside it.
• The Court initiated an analysis of corporate criminal liability, specifically focusing on the attribution of mens rea (guilty mind) to a corporation.
• The Court reviewed the 'identification principle' and the position of law in England and Wales (citing Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass, Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission, and The Barclays Cases) and in India.
• The Court examined the issue of mandatory imprisonment and how corporates possess mens rea under Indian law.
• The Court considered whether proceedings can be quashed solely on the ground of non-identification and non-arrainment of a natural person.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document