https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772 The Court upheld the respondent's acquittal in an appeal by the State under Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules. The respondent, claiming to be a sleeping partner not involved in managing the cinema house, was acquitted based on the definition of "Proprietor" under the rules. The Court found that since the respondent was not responsible for managing the entertainment, he did not fall under the definition of "Proprietor" and therefore was not liable for the alleged offences. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the respondent's acquittal. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 09:53:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772 The Court upheld the respondent's acquittal in an appeal by the State under Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules. The respondent, claiming to be a sleeping partner not involved in managing the cinema house, was acquitted based on the definition of "Proprietor" under the rules. The Court found that since the respondent was not responsible for managing the entertainment, he did not fall under the definition of "Proprietor" and therefore was not liable for the alleged offences. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the respondent's acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772