As per case facts, the applicant, a Director of a company, was accused of defrauding the government by submitting false declarations between 2005-2012. She argued she had resigned in December ... 2005, prior to the alleged acts. She is appealing the rejection of her discharge application. The question arose whether she could be held vicariously liable for the company's offences without specific evidence of her active role or criminal intent. Finally, the High Court ruled that vicarious liability of Directors is not automatic and requires specific averments of active involvement or criminal intent. Since no such specific allegations or evidence were found against her in the FIR or chargesheet, the court discharged her from the offences, quashing the lower court orders.