PRAHLAD LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have gone through the proposed judgment of learned brother Farooq Hasan, J. with whom brother Kasliwal, J. has agreed. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to the larger Bench as in his opinion there are two different views of two Judges sitting singly in Avinashi Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1930 Cr. LR. page 515 and Prakash Chandra Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan 1984 R L R 842 on the interpretation of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No. X of 1955) (for short, the Act). As in the proposed judgment of my brother Judges agreement has been recorded with the view taken in Prakash Chandra Ajmera's case (supra) with the reasoning of which I am unable to persuade myself I will like to express on the controversy involved in this case.

(2.) UNDER Section 7 of the Act any person who contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act is punishable. The word 'person' is of wide connotation. The term includes an individual, corporation, regarded as having rights and duties under law, a company. Under Section 7 of the Act any person who actually contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act will be punishable. As a general rule in criminal law the master is not liable for the acts of his servants, agents But in many cases the law imposes upon the owner of the property the obligation of managing it, so that it shall not injuriously affect any one -else in the public, or requires or forbids the dealing with it in some particular way. In such cases where the breach of obligation is punishable criminally the owner cannot free himself from liability by delegating the management to some one -else on his behalf. This liability of the owner is based on the rule of vicarious liability which has been expressed in many cases arising under the special enactments. Thus Section 10 of the Act deals with vicarious liability of a person other than one who has actually contravened any order made under Section 3 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Hari Prasad Rao v. State : 1951CriLJ768 , while dealing with a case under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, Clause 27A (an order made under the Defence of India Rules) has adverted to this aspect of vicarious liability of master for the acts of his servants. Clause 27 A of the aforesaid Order reads as under:

(3.) IT will be seen that before a partner of a firm or member of association of individuals can be held vicariously liable under Clause (1)of Section 10 of the Act for contravention by the firm or association of individuals of any order made under Section 3 of the Act, such a partner or member must be proved to be incharge of and responsible to the firm or other association of individuals for the conduct of its business. The mere fact of his being a partner or member aforesaid will not make him liable. In the case of Prakash Chandra, Ajmer (supra) it has been observed;