Section 11 of The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025
- (1)Where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of that part of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
- (2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall render any such person liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly under this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
- (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall hold an independent director or a non-executive director of a company who is not involved in the actual decision making, liable for such offence. Explanation.---For the purposes of this section, the expressions---
- (a)"company" means a body corporate, and includes---
- (i)a firm; and
- (ii)an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not; and
- (b)"director", in relation to---
- (i)a firm, means a partner in the firm;
- (ii)any association of persons or a body of individuals, means any member controlling its affairs thereof.
- (a)"company" means a body corporate, and includes---
Summary
(1) Where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of that part of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and.
Practical examples
FAQ
1. Who is held responsible when a corporate business violates the Online Gaming Act of 2025 under Section 11?
Under Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act of 2025, both the company itself and every person who was in charge of and responsible to the company for conducting its business at the time of the offence are held liable.
2. Can a company director escape liability under Section 11 of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025?
Yes, under Section 11 of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, a director can escape liability if they prove that the offense was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
3. Are independent directors liable for company offenses under Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act 2025?
No, Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act 2025 includes a special rule that independent directors and non-executive directors who are not involved in actual decision-making cannot be held liable for the company's offences.
4. How does Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act of 2025 define a company and a director?
Under Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act of 2025, a company includes corporations, partnership firms, and associations of people. A director includes partners in a firm and members who control the affairs of an association.
Test yourself
Q1.Under Section 11 of The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which of the following is specifically exempted from liability for a company's offense if they are not involved in actual decision-making?
Q2.Under Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act, 2025, what must a person who was in charge of a company prove to avoid being punished for an offense committed by the company?
Q3.Under Section 11 of The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, how is a "director" defined in relation to a partnership firm?
Q4.Under Section 11 of the Online Gaming Act, 2025, if an offense is committed by a company due to the consent, connivance, or neglect of a secretary, who is deemed guilty?