Introduction

Criminal liability is generally made up of two elements:

(1) the guilty act or omission known as the "actus reus", and
(2) the prohibited state of mind or guilty mind known as the "mens
rea".
The mental element generally requires the proof of an intention on
the part of the person who commits the criminal act.Most criminal
offences require the co-existence of the above two elements (i.e.
actus reus and mens rea) at the same time. The concept is derived
from the Latin expression actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ,
which means that "the act will not make a person guilty unless the
mind is also guilty".
For example, a person is not guilty of murder if he caused the
death of another person by accidentally knocking him down with his
car. The mens rea for the offence of murder requires an intention to
kill another person or cause him very serious bodily injury, which is
lacking in this example. However, this person may have committed
the offence of dangerous driving causing death because the mens
rea requires in such an offence is an intention to drive the car,
which is present in the example. Whether this person is guilty of
that offence depends on whether he committed the actus reus , i.e.
whether he drove his car in a dangerous manner as defined in the
legislation.
In some special cases, known as "strict liability offences", there
may not be any prohibited state of mind necessary and only a
guilty act is sufficient for criminal liability.
Joint liability
The concept of joint liability comes under Section 34 of IPC which
states that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone. The section can be explained as when two or more persons
commit any criminal act and with the intention of committing that
criminal act, then each of them will be liable for that act as if the
act is done by them individually.
The ingredients of section 34 of IPC are-

1) A criminal act is done by several persons;

2) The criminal act must be to further the common intention of all;
3) There must be participation of all the persons in furthering the
common intention.
Let us take a hypothetical situation- There are two persons A and B.
Both of them decided to rob a bank to earn some quick money. Both
of them decided in advance that they will not hurt anybody and
they will only take the money. After reaching the bank A tells B to
guard the gate of the bank while he takes the money. When A was
taking the money, security guard came running towards A. A out of
fear, stabbed the security guard with a knife due to which he died.
After that A ran with B along with the knife. In this case, even
though B had no intention of killing the security guard but he will
also be liable for the murder of security guard and robbery along
with A.
Laws Relating to Joint Liability
The concept of Joint Liability is embodied under Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention- when a criminal act is done by several persons
in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if done by him alone.
When IPC was enacted in 1860, section 34 at that time didnt
included words in furtherance of common intention, then an
amendment was made in year 1870 to amend Indian Penal Code
and then these words were included in the section 34. The
amended section 34 of IPC simply says that all those persons who
have committed a crime with a common intention and they have
acted while keeping in mind the common intention, then everyone
should be liable for the acts of another done in common intention
as if the act is done by the person alone. It happens that different
persons perform different acts in the commission of the act or non
commission of the act, even though when section 34 applies, all the
persons in group are jointly liable for the acts of another.
Case Laws Analysis
In the case of Chhotu v. State of maharashtra, the complainant
party was attacked by the accused as a result of which one person
died. The witness produced stated that three persons were
assaulting the deceased and the fourth one was simply standing
holding a knife in his hand. It was held that only three accused were
liable under section 302/34 of IPC and fourth one didnt share the
common intention.

In the case of State of Haryana v. Pradeep Kumar and others,

some persons were charged under murder of Krishnan Kumar
Khandelwal who was a major contestant and majority of party
members were supporting him. The respondent who was also
present at the time of murder and believed to be main conspirator
was acquitted by the court. When the state appealed against the
acquittal of Pradeep Kumar, it was rejected by Supreme Court.
In the case of Heera and another v. State of Rajasthan, a
person was crushed by a vehicle at the bus stand. On the
statement of witnesses, the police found that murder was done by
7 persons. The accused Heera and Rama @ Ram Singh along with
co accused Anna. Mangla, Modu, Dharma and Satya Narayan were
arrested. Some of the co-accused were acquitted and remaining
were not. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction
of accused and he was set free.

CONCLUSION
The rule of constructive liability is a unrealistic doctrine. It is an imaginary
doctrine and is a fiction created by the judicial pronouncement of the Courts.
Innumerable parties enter into a number of contracts in everyday business of
the company. This doctrine expects each and every outsider not only to know
the documents of the company but also presume to understand the exact
nature of documents, which is practically not possible. In reality, the
company is not known by the documents but by the people who represent it
and deal with an outsider. The outsiders do the business and enter into
contracts not always on the basis of documents of the company but the
goodwill and the reputation of the directors or officers who are representing
the company.
This is the reason why the British Courts and Indian Courts have shifted its
approach in dealing with the cases relating to the outsider of the company.
The Indian Courts have not given much importance to this doctrine. The
European Communities Act has also abrogated the concept of constructive
notice by bringing Section 9 of the Act which recognizes the concept of good
faith in business transaction. This provision is in the tune of the reality of the
business transaction, where the outsiders of the company enter into the
various contracts not on the basis of the documents of the company but on
the good faith of the company.
This is the reason why the courts have evolved the doctrine of indoor
management as an opposite to the doctrine of constructive notice in order to
protect the interests of the outsiders.

The researcher on the basis of the various commentaries on the subject and
the cases decided by the British Courts and Indian Courts is of view that
merely registration of a company should not constitute the notice of the
documents submitted to the registrar. Also, an outsider should always have
the freedom to make some assumption which a reasonable person may infer
into the particular circumstances.