Sleeping partner liability under entertainment duty rules fails without proof of management control or responsibility.

A sleeping partner who was not shown to be responsible for or in charge of a cinema house's management did not fall within the inclusive definition of "proprietor" under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules. The rules fixed compliance obligations on the proprietor, but mere partnership status was insufficient where the prosecution produced no evidence disproving the claim of inactive participation in management. In the absence of proof of managerial responsibility, liability for contravention of Rules 8A and 13, punishable under Rule 25, could not be fastened. The respondent was therefore not liable for the alleged breach and the acquittal stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sleeping partner not shown to be connected with the management of the cinema house falls within the definition of "proprietor" and is liable for contravention of Rules 8A and 13 punishable under Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules.

Analysis: The rules fastened compliance responsibilities on the proprietor of the entertainment. The definition of "proprietor" was inclusive and extended to a person responsible for or for the time being in charge of the management. On the material available, the only allegation was that the respondent was a partner, while his specific plea that he was only a sleeping partner and had no concern with management was neither controverted by evidence nor dislodged by the prosecution. In the absence of any proof that he was responsible for or in charge of the management, the inclusive definition could not be applied to fasten liability.

Conclusion: The respondent did not fall within the definition of "proprietor" and was not liable for the alleged breach; the acquittal was .

---