TAPAN CHANDRA KAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, whereby charge under Rule 114(11a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, was framed against the accused-petitioners no.1 to 4, the accused-petitioner no.1, Tapan, being stated to be the Manager and the accused-petitioners nos.2, 3 and 4 being stated to be the partners of a firm under the name and style of M/s. Annapurna Marketing Agency at 10, Pollock Street, Calcutta. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners did not display the stock of Baby Food, to wit, Amul Spray in the office-cum-sales counter of the firm at 10, Pollock Street, on 18.6.74, although they had a physical stock of 497 cartons, each carton containing 12 tins of 1000 grams, 11 tins each of 1000 grams and 62 cartons each containing 24 tins of 500 grams of Amul Spray in their godown at Canning Ware House at 7, Strand Road, Calcutta. On alleging violation of Para-3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1971, punishable under Rule 114(11a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter calaled "the D.I. Rules" for the sake of convenience), the present prosecution was started against the petitioners.

(2.) After filing of the charge-sheet, prosecution examined three P.Ws. Subsequently, by an order passed on 10.9.80, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, directed framing of a charge under Rule 114(11a) of the D.I. Rules. It is against this order for framing of charge against the petitioners no.1 to 4 that the present revisional application is directed.

(3.) Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, has contended that the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed when the firm, M/s. Annapurna Marketing Agency, was not an accused in the case. The contention of Mr. Roy is that the provisions of Rule 170 of the D. I. Rules are similar to the provisions in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is contended that as M/s. Annapurna Marketing Agency, is not an accused in the case, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioners nos. 2, 3 and 4, who happen to be the partners of the firm or on the petitioner no.1, who happens to be the manager of the firm. Mrs. Bhose, the learned Advocate for the State, has contended that charge has only been framed in the case and the P.Ws. are yet to be cross-examined after charge. According to her, the prosecution of the petitioners is maintainable, even though the firm has not been made an accused in the case.