MAHADEO SHEOLAL AGARWAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the decisions of criminal Revisions Nos. 292 of 1948 and 295 of 1948 also. All the three revisions arise out of three separate prosecutions launched against the applicants in respect of Reven different contraventions of Clause 8 (1), C. P. and Berar Foodgraina Control Order, 1946. The applicants have been sentenced to pay different amount of fine in respect of these contraventions.

(2.) The applicants are partners of the firm Mahadeo Onkarlal of Khandwa, whose business apparently is to deal in foodgrains. They held a licence for doing this business but it was can- celled on 13 February 1946. In spite of this the firm Mahadeo Onkarlal purchased varying quantities of foodgrains from other dealerB between 10 April 1946 and 17 May 1946. It is now admitted that the applicant Onkarlal acted for the firm in respect of four transactions and that the applicant Mahadeo acted in respect of one transaction. As regards the two transactions which were respectively of 11 April 1946 and 12 April 1946 the evidence is said to be indefinite.

(3.) Two points are argued before me. The first is that one partner cannot be held criminally liable for the act of another, and the second is that where the evidence does not definitely indicate which of the partners entered into a particular transaction neither of them can be held criminally liable.