Vicarious liability of partners requires firm-level charge and proof of day-to-day control before prosecution can proceed.

Partners cannot be proceeded against under the vicarious liability provision of the Essential Commodities Act unless the firm is first charged as the principal offender and the record shows that the partners were in overall control of, and responsible for, the day-to-day business of the firm. Mere status as a partner, or a clause permitting operation of the bank account, is insufficient to establish liability. As no charge under the relevant provision was laid against the firm and no material showed the petitioners' day-to-day control, the charge against the partners was quashed and they were discharged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the partners could be proceeded against under Section 10(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 when the firm itself was not charged as the principal offender. (ii) Whether there was material to show that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the firm so as to attract vicarious liability.

Issue (i): Whether the partners could be proceeded against under Section 10(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 when the firm itself was not charged as the principal offender.

Analysis: Liability under Section 10(1) arises only when the contravention is by the company or firm itself and the persons sought to be proceeded against are shown to be in charge of and responsible for its business. Where the firm is not charged as such and no reference is made to Section 10(1) in the charge or charge-sheet, the partners cannot be charged merely by reason of their status as partners.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners. The charge against them could not be sustained on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether there was material to show that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the firm so as to attract vicarious liability.

Analysis: The expression requiring a person to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business means overall control of the day-to-day affairs. Mere partnership or a clause permitting operation of the bank account does not establish such control. The record contained no allegation or material showing that any petitioner had such control at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners. The requirements for vicarious liability were not met.

Final Conclusion: The charge framed against the petitioners was quashed and they were discharged because the foundational requirements for proceeding against them under the vicarious liability provision were not established.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner can be proceeded against under the vicarious liability provision only if the firm is first charged as the principal offender and the record shows that the partner was in overall control of and responsible for the day-to-day business of the firm.

---