SADHURAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this case are three partners (or a paid manager and two partners proper) of a factory manufacturing linseed oil. A sample of the oil was taken and it being round to be below standard there was a prosecution in which each of the three partners was convicted under Sections 7 and 16 (1) of the prevention of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act") and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each with imprisonment in default. An appeal being dismissed, ail the three came up in revision. But the application was admitted for hearing only on the ground, namely, whether the partners other than sadhuram the paid manager or the partner who was actually present at the time of the taking of the sample could be considered to have been in charge of the business for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act and held liable, even though they were not in the premises when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector.

(2.) THE factual position as found is that Sadhuram was at the mills at that time. The two others--Sangatram and Laxmichand--go there from time to time but were not at the mills on that occasion. They admit they were partners and they also accept the principle that any partner in charge of and responsible for the business would be liable even if he was absent at the time of the commission of the offence. Their argument is that in the circumstances of the case their absence at the time of the offence was itself evidence "of the offence having been committed without their knowledge and their having exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission". In fact, the argument closely analysed turns out to be twofold; firstly, that Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act has no application in their case because they were not in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm; secondly, even if they were, the offence had been committed without their knowledge they having exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission.

(3.) ALL that we have is that they admit to be partners living in the same town and in fact the same locality as the mill. They had not dissociated themselves. Once it is established that an individual is a member of a firm especially if it is small one, it would be for him to show that he had dissociated himself from the day to day conduct of the business. The modus operandi in public limited companies is of course different, and of private limited companies would seem to be half way; but we are not concerned with them here, except to note that these are in different layers. There are share-holders who both in law and in practice do not in that capacity have any control over the conduct of the business of the company: then there are directors who have got a voice in the conduct of the business: often there is an inner circle of management where the responsibility will cease and immunith will start would be an interesting question which fan be answered with reference to the pattern of the arrangement for day to day business in the company. In the case of a, firm with two or three partners that question does not arise; every partner would be deemed responsible unless he shows that he has completely dissociated himself from the day to day business of the partnership. He can also show in the alternative so that he conies under the proviso, namely, being interested in the business and being responsible for it, he had taken all reasonable precautions against the commission of the offence and it had been committed without his knowledge. These two are mutually exclusive. Here the partners have not shown either fact.