GORDHANDAS TEKCHAND SINDHI Vs. INDORE CITY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act, 1952, (Act No. 7 of 1952)contains a provision by which any one of the individual partners or members of a firm or an association which has committed an offence punishable under the Act and the rules thereunder may be made responsible for the offence. That provision is Section 53 (1) which is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioners are partners of a firm bearing the name and style of Naraindas takhatrai. They are being prosecuted for a contravention of rule 18 (10) of the madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Rules, 1953. During the course of the trial they raised the objection that under Section 53 (1) only one of the partners and not all could be prosecuted. This objection was overruled by the trial magistrate. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Additional sessions Judge of Indore which was rejected. They have now come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE question that arises for determination in this case is as regards the interpretation of Section 53 (1 ). Mr. Devandas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the plain and natural meaning of the words "anyone of the individual partners" was one of the partners and not all, that this was the correct meaning of the expression was clear from the proviso to Section 53 (1)which particularised the one partner or member who could he made responsible for an offence under the Act of the rules thereunder when the firm or association had nominated one of its resident members in the State as the employer for the purposes of the Act. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate contended that the words "anyone of the individual partners or members" were wide enough to include all the partners and members and that the proviso far from supporting the construction sought to be put by the petitioners only lent support io his contention. Learned Government Advocate drew my attention to a decision of the Allahabad high Court in Ram Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P. , AIR 1956 All 4 (A), where the. somewhat analogous provision of Section 100 (1) of the Indian Factories Act, 1948, were construed to mean that not one but all the partners would be individually liable under Section 92 of the Factories Act for the breach of rules 6 and 13 of the U. P. Factories Rules, 1950.