An Analytical Study on Corporate Criminal Liability: Comparative Study of India and USA

Due to the rise in industrialization and globalisation, big scale companies are emerging worldwide and have established a dominating position during the last two centuries. Multinational Corporations now have a significant impact in almost every aspect of human existence. It is apparent that natural individuals commit crime because they are physically and intellectually capable of doing so, but a corporation cannot, even if it is considered a person under the law. England, United States, And Canada which are also known as common law countries were among the first to attempt to establish corporate criminal responsibility. Despite an earlier reluctance to penalise companies, English courts began to recognise corporate criminal responsibility in 1842, when a company was penalised for failing to carry out a statutory obligation. But due to many reasons there was a lot of reluctancy in recognising corporate criminal liability. The current position is that a company can be guilty of any crime except those that require a certain level of intention by the accused. This is frequently true in situations of economic offences such as the Foreign Exchange Act, the Food Adulteration Act, and so on. Companies were used to held liable for criminal offences under common law with specific exclusions such as theft, burglary, abduction, homicide, assault. There was no requirement for a mental state in this regard, and only fine used to be imposed on corporations as fine. Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the procedure for dealing with the accused company, however the tough subject of imposing punishment when the legislation mandates a minimum time of imprisonment as penalty arises. The present research paper attempts a comparative analysis regarding the criminal liability of corporate entities in USA and India.