1998 (3) TMI 152 - HC - Central Excise

Partners in a firm can be liable for firm's offenses unless lack of knowledge or due diligence proven.

The court upheld the charge against the petitioner, emphasizing that partners in a firm can be held liable for offenses committed by the firm unless they ... Prosecution - Framing of charges Issues:Petition seeking quashment of charge framed under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the A.C.J.M. (Economic Offences), Indore.Analysis:The petitioner, a partner in a firm accused of evading excise duty, sought to quash the charge under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner argued lack of evidence linking him to the alleged evasion. However, the court found that as a partner in the firm, he could be deemed a director under Section 9AA of the Act. This section holds individuals in charge of a company responsible for offences committed by the company. The petitioner's liability could only be negated by proving lack of knowledge or demonstrating due diligence in preventing the offence.In this case, departmental witnesses testified to the firm's evasion of duty, implicating the partners. The defense failed to challenge this testimony or establish the petitioner's innocence as per Section 9AA(1) proviso. The Magistrate, empowered by Section 246(1) Cr.P.C., framed the charge based on the evidence before him, indicating a prima facie case for the accused to answer. The Magistrate's decision was deemed reasonable, supported by the evidence, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition seeking to quash the charge.Therefore, the court upheld the charge against the petitioner, emphasizing the legal principle that partners in a firm can be held liable for offences committed by the firm unless they prove lack of knowledge or demonstrate due diligence in preventing the offence. The decision highlighted the importance of challenging evidence and establishing innocence to avoid liability under the relevant legal provisions.