Give correct response. In J. M. Desai v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889, Mr. Desai was the…

In order to punish a person by application of Section 34 mental as well as physical participation was necessary, therefore, in absence of actual physical participation the Managing Director was not liable.

Since the act was not done in furtherance of a common intention, therefore, Managing Director cannot be punished for any offence, in the absence of evidence that the offence was committed with his consent or knowledge.

The Managing Director would be vicariously liable for the offence of criminal misappropriation under Section 409 IPC because he was responsible for supervision and control of the servants of the company who might have caused the loss negligently.

The Managing Director would be liable under Section 409 read with Section 34 I.P.C. because physical presence is not necessary in offences involving diverse acts which may be done at different time and places.