Section 131 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978: Offences by Companies
Section 131 explains when a company and the persons responsible for its business may be held liable for an offence under the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act 34 of 1978). It also sets out a statutory defence and a separate basis of liability for company officers.
What Section 131 provides
Section 131(1): Responsibility for conduct of business
Where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, the company and every person who, at the relevant time, was both in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business are deemed guilty and may be proceeded against and punished in accordance with law.
Proviso: Such a person can avoid punishment under this provision by proving that the offence occurred without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
Section 131(2): Consent, connivance or neglect
Independently of sub-section (1), a director, manager, secretary or other company officer may also be held liable where the offence is proved to have occurred with that officer's consent or connivance, or to be attributable to that officer's neglect.
Explanation: Statutory meanings
Company: A body corporate, including a firm or other association of individuals.
Director in relation to a firm: A partner in that firm.
The provision above is explained in accessible language. For the authoritative legislative wording, consult the Delhi Police Act, 1978 on India Code (official PDF).
How liability under Section 131 works
Sub-section (1) focuses on the actual responsibility for running the company's business at the time of the alleged offence. The statutory test refers to a person being both in charge of and responsible to the company. A person's title alone does not replace an examination of the applicable statutory conditions and evidence.
Sub-section (2) addresses an additional situation: an officer's consent, connivance or neglect in relation to the offence. The prosecution must establish the statutory basis invoked. The two sub-sections therefore address related but distinct grounds for liability.
Defence of lack of knowledge or due diligence
The proviso to Section 131(1) allows a person covered by that sub-section to show either that the offence occurred without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. Relevant records may include documented compliance procedures, instructions, supervision and steps taken to prevent the particular contravention. Whether the defence succeeds depends on the evidence and the facts of the case.
Scope and practical implications
Section 131 applies to offences under the Delhi Police Act committed by a company as defined in its Explanation. It does not make every employee automatically liable. The underlying offence, the person's role at the relevant time, and the applicable ground of liability must be considered together.
For example, if a firm is alleged to have contravened a provision of the Act, its partners may fall within the statutory meaning of directors for Section 131. Liability must still be assessed under the requirements of sub-section (1) or (2), rather than inferred merely from the existence of the firm.
Official legal sources
Read the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (India Code) and the Delhi Police Acts and Rules directory. For legal application, check the current consolidated text, any amendments and relevant judicial decisions.
Frequently asked questions
Does Section 131 apply only to incorporated companies?
No. Its Explanation includes firms and other associations of individuals within the meaning of company.
Can a manager be personally liable?
Yes, if the requirements of Section 131(1) are met, or if the grounds in Section 131(2) are proved in relation to that manager.
Does Section 131 prescribe imprisonment or a fine?
No separate punishment is specified in Section 131. Any punishment depends on the underlying offence and applicable provisions of the Act.
This article is general legal information and is not a substitute for advice on a particular case.