Minor admitted to partnership benefits cannot face excise prosecution without proof of personal participation in the alleged contravention.

A minor admitted only to the benefits of a partnership cannot be prosecuted merely because of that status for alleged excise contraventions. Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act limits such a minor's exposure to the firm's share and expressly excludes personal liability. In the absence of evidence that the petitioner personally participated in the removal or despatch of goods, or otherwise committed any act in breach of the excise rules, a criminal prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained. The charges were quashed and the proceedings set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person admitted to the benefits of a partnership, who was a minor at the time of the partnership, could be prosecuted merely by reason of that status for alleged contraventions of the excise law, in the absence of evidence of personal participation.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act permits a minor to be admitted only to the benefits of partnership and makes the minor's share liable for the firm's acts, while expressly negativing personal liability. The material on record showed no evidence that the petitioner had personally carried out any act in contravention of the excise rules or personally participated in the alleged removal and despatch of goods. Mere description as a partner in the firm, without proof of personal involvement in the offending acts, was insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: The charges against the petitioner were quashed and the proceedings against him were set aside.

---