RANGALAL SOWCAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise viction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, mallee, in Summary Trial No. 91 of 1952 file. The petitioners are two of the part the firm of G. T. R. Company. The fl(sic) sists of three partners as is clear from deuce of P. W. 2 who says that one Thir-karusu, one of the partners, has left the the prosecution is under Section 15(h) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for wilfully in contravention of Section 13 of the Act. Und of the Act every registered dealer and ev(sic) son licensed under this Act shall keep an tain a true and correct account. The case the accounts that were seized by P. W. 1 (sic) 1950 when he went to the premises and (sic) it are not true accounts maintained by (sic)

(2.) Objection is taken by Mr. Sundaram prosecution of these two persons on the that it is the firm that should be prosecu not two of the partners alone. It is out in -- 'Public Prosecutor v. K. Jacob (1) (A) which was foll me in -' In re, Behara Lachanna', A Mad 332 (B), where a firm is the assess(sic) the firm that must be prosecuted and individual partners. If a complaint had (sic) against all three partners then that can be as prosecuting the firm. But that has (sic) done in this case. Only two of the partn(sic) prosecuted and therefore the prosecution can(sic) lie in view of the decisions mentioned above. T convictions and sentences are set aside and (sic) accused are acquitted. The fines, if paid, be refunded.

(3.) This does not mean that a fresh pro(sic) tion cannot lie against all the three partner the plea of 'autrefois acquit' under Section 403 minal P. C., will not avail these petitioner properly framed complaint is laid again firm as such including all the three parto Order acco(sic)