TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in the absence of proof that all partners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the relevant time, their conviction for contravention punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act could be sustained under section 10 of that Act.
Analysis: Section 10 creates criminal liability for a firm and for those persons who, at the time of contravention, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business. The provision does not fasten vicarious criminal liability on every partner merely by reason of partnership. A penal provision must be strictly construed, and the burden under the proviso arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational fact that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the business. In the evidence, only one partner was shown to have signed the relevant statement on behalf of the firm and to have conducted the business. There was no material to show that the remaining partners were managing the firm's affairs during the relevant period.
Conclusion: The conviction of the partners who were not shown to be in charge of the business was unsustainable, while the conviction of the partner who was shown to be conducting the business was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
