IN RE: SWARANATH BHATIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST his conviction for having abetted the contravention of Rules 4 and 7 of the Madras Cotton Cloth and Apparel (Exports) Control Order, 1946, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 81 (iv) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules and the Sentence of fine of Rs. 300 imposed on him by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, Swaranath Bhatia, a partner in the firm of Viswanath Prem Prakash appeals to this Court and what I have to decide is how far the appellant can be charged with the liability for the crime.

(2.) THE facts are practically admitted. The appellant is one of the partners of the aforesaid firm and the second accused before the lower Court was said to be the other partner. As there was no tangible evidence to prove that he (second accused) had any connection with the Madras branch, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged him under Section 253(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The partnership of Viswanath Prem Prakash had been given by the Textile Com -missioner, Madras, permit No. 68916, Ex. P -1, granting leave to export 10,000 yards of cloth from Madras to Amritsar in East Punjab. On the 27th June, 1946, presumably acting on this permit, six bales of cotton textiles containing 18,372 yards of cloth were booked for depatch at the Salt Cotaurs goods shed by P.W. 5, an agent and carting contractor, engaged by one Ram Datta, an employee of the firm; which bales of cloth had been handed over to P.W. 5 by the said Ram Datta for despatch. Accordingly, P.W. 5 signed the consignment forms and risk note and the six bales were delivered over to the railway at the Salt Cotaurs goods shed. On information received P.W. 1, the Textile Control Officer, Madras, seized these bales on 4th July, 1946, while they were being loaded and after further investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence mentioned above.

(3.) MR . Sivaprasad for the appellant raised three points on the above findings for he did not dispute the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court that the appellant was a partner. The learned Counsel argued the appeal accepting the findings of the lower Court and submitted that on the questions of law, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal. The first of such points was that the presumption under Rule 122 of the Defence of India Rules regarding the offence committed by corporations cannot apply to the circumstances of the present case; for the partner -ship in question will not come within the meaning of the expression " other body corporate " in Rule 122. The expression " body corporate " should be read as ejusdem generis with the word " company " and should be applied to such legal entities as a corporation created by a Royal Charter or a co -operative society or Other bodies which do not come within the definition of the term " company."