Partner in charge liability: admitted control of firm's affairs sustained conviction, while imprisonment was reduced on review.

A partner who admitted that he alone looked after the firm's affairs was treated as a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business for vicarious liability under the penal provision. His absence from the business premises at the time of contravention did not, by itself, negate liability where there was no evidence that he had relinquished control. The conviction was sustained. In review, however, the custodial sentence was moderated in light of the statutory scheme and the circumstances, and rigorous imprisonment was set aside so that the punishment was confined to fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partner who stated that he alone looked after the affairs of the firm was a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business so as to attract vicarious liability under the Act. (ii) Whether, in review, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on that partner should be interfered with and confined to fine in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a partner who stated that he alone looked after the affairs of the firm was a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business so as to attract vicarious liability under the Act.

Analysis: Liability under the penal provision was held to depend upon whether the person was in overall control of the day-to-day business of the firm. A partner's absence from the place of business at the time of contravention did not, by itself, displace responsibility where he had admitted that he alone looked after the affairs of the firm and there was no proof that he had relinquished charge. The provision was construed strictly, but the admitted role of the partner brought him within the statutory description.

Conclusion: The partner was held liable as a person in charge of the firm's business, and the conviction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether, in review, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on that partner should be interfered with and confined to fine in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: On review, the Court took into account the statutory scheme governing liability of officers of a firm and the fact that the partner was abroad at the time of the contravention. While the conviction remained unaffected, the Court considered that the penal consequence should be moderated because the contravention may have occurred without the partner's knowledge or neglect.

Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the punishment was confined to fine.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the punishment was reduced by removing the custodial sentence, so the review succeeded only to the extent of sentence modification.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner who has overall control of a firm's day-to-day affairs falls within the statutory expression "person in charge and responsible," and absence from the place of business does not by itself defeat such liability unless relinquishment of charge is shown.

---