Partner liability for excise offences can arise unless lack of knowledge or due diligence is shown at charge stage.

A partner may be treated as liable for an excise offence committed by the firm under Section 9AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, unless he shows that the offence occurred without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent it. At the stage of framing charge, Section 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits a charge where the recorded material, if unrebutted, could sustain conviction. Prima facie testimony from departmental witnesses was sufficient to justify proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge framed for an offence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was liable to be quashed in revision.

Analysis: The accused was a partner of the firm in relation to which the alleged excise evasion had taken place. Under Section 9AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a firm is treated as a company and a partner is treated as a director for the purpose of fastening liability where the offence is committed by the firm. Such liability is attracted unless the person concerned shows that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent it. The evidence recorded before charge, including the unchallenged testimony of departmental witnesses, was sufficient to raise a prima facie case, and the Magistrate was empowered under Section 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to frame charge where the material, if unrebutted, could lead to conviction.

Conclusion: The revision failed and interference with the order framing charge was declined.

---