Personal statutory penalty cannot be recovered from heirs, but accounting breaches can still sustain liability for surviving business participants.

A statutory penalty of a personal and punitive character could not be enforced against the legal representatives of the deceased person, so recovery from his estate was barred. However, the surviving petitioners remained liable for penalty because the business was treated as a joint family gold business and the relevant accounts were not properly maintained. Setting aside confiscation for want of notice to the family head did not erase the accounting defaults attributable to the licensed goldsmiths responsible for compliance. The reduced penalty fixed by the Tribunal was upheld, and interference was declined on that aspect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the penalty imposed on a person could be realised from his legal representatives after his death before recovery; (ii) whether the remaining petitioners could still be held liable to penalty for failure to maintain proper accounts in the gold business notwithstanding the setting aside of confiscation on the ground of absence of notice to the family head.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed on a person could be realised from his legal representatives after his death before recovery.

Analysis: The liability created by the penalty was treated as punitive in character and not as an ordinary debt. Once the person against whom the penalty was imposed had died, recovery from his legal representatives would in substance amount to punishing them for his alleged default. The object of the penalty was personal deterrence, and that object could not be achieved by proceeding against the estate in the hands of the heirs.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the deceased person was held to be unrecoverable from his legal representatives.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining petitioners could still be held liable to penalty for failure to maintain proper accounts in the gold business notwithstanding the setting aside of confiscation on the ground of absence of notice to the family head.

Analysis: The business was found to be a joint family business and the accounts for the relevant period were not properly maintained. The setting aside of confiscation for want of notice to the family head did not by itself erase the admitted lapses in account maintenance by the petitioners who were licensed goldsmiths and responsible for compliance. In view of the reduced quantum of penalty fixed by the Tribunal, no ground was found to interfere with that aspect of the order.

Conclusion: The penalty liability of the surviving petitioners was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent that the penalty could not be recovered from the estate of the deceased person, while the reduced penalty against the other petitioners was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory penalty of a personal and punitive character cannot be enforced against the legal representatives of the person penalised after his death, but liability for failure to comply with accounting obligations may still be sustained against the surviving persons found responsible.

---