Partner liability requires specific allegations, and proceedings were quashed where the complaint failed to show a prima facie case.

Rule 70(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock) Markets Rules, 1969 fastens liability on the licensed person who fails to comply with a direction to produce account books and records. Where the complaint showed the licensed person to be the firm, and notices were issued to the firm through its manager, the partners could not be prosecuted merely by virtue of their status. In the absence of specific averments that individual notices were served on each partner or that any partner personally committed an act of omission or commission constituting the offence, no prima facie case was made out against them. The criminal proceedings against the partners were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the partners of a firm can be prosecuted and impleaded as accused for non-compliance with directions issued to the licensed firm under Rule 70(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock) Markets Rules, 1969, and whether the criminal proceedings against them were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Rule 70(2) fastens liability on the licensed person who fails to comply with the direction to produce account books and records. On the complaint as filed, the licensed person was the firm, and the notices were shown to have been issued to the firm through its manager. There was no specific averment that individual notices were served on the partners or that each partner was personally guilty of any act of omission or commission constituting the offence. In the absence of such specific allegations, the partners could not be made liable merely because of their status as partners. Applying the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers, the complaint had to be examined on its face to see whether any offence was made out against the petitioners.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the partners were quashed because the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against them.

---