Give Correct Response

Give correct response. In J.M. Desat v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889, Mr. Desai was the Managing Director of a Dying Company, the company entered into a contract with the textile Commissioner undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth. Out of the lot some were returned back to the commissioner by the company while others, even after repeated demand, remained undelivered. Therefore, the Managing Director was charged for an offence and he pleaded that the clothes were eaten up by white ants and that he was not personally responsible for damage done to them and their nondelivery.

A) 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.
B) 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.
C) 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.
D) 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.