SHAM SUNDAR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 21-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAM SUNDAR & ORS. 
A.. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
AUGUST 21, 1989 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY ANDS. RATNAVEL 
PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979: Contravention 
of by partnership firm-Prosecution of all partners-Maintainability 
of. 
-:)> .• 
c 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955: ss. 7 & JO-Contravention of 
~· 
Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979 by parmership firm-
Liability for-Held, no vicarious liability in criminal law unless statute 
so specifies. 
D 
The short supply of levy rice to the State Government by licensed 
millers is a contravention of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) 
Order, 1979 made under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 
The said contravention is punishable under s. 7 of the Act. Under s. 
10(1) of the Act a person is deemed to be guilty of contravention of such r 
an order, if he was in charge of and was responsible to the company for 
E 
the conduct of its business. Under the proviso thereto, a person is, 
however, not liable to any punishment if he proves that the contraven-
t.ion took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due 
diligence to prevent such contravention. Under explanation (a) to the 
-
section the term "compauy" includes a firm or other association of 
individuals. 
~ 
F 
The appellants, partners of a firm running a rice mill, were con-
v.icted for contravention of the provisions of the procurement order 
read with s. 7 of the Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and 
fine. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
G 
In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants 
that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution that they were in 
charge of the business of the firm when the offence was committed and 
~ 
in the absence of any such evidence the conviction could not be 
sustained. 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, 
886 
SHAM SUNDAR v. STATE OF HARYANA ISHETTY, J.] 
887 
HELD: I. There is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless 
the statute takes that also within its fold. Section IO of the Essential 
Commodities Act does not provide for such liability. It does not 
make all the partners liable for the offence whether they do business or 
not.[890C] 
2.1 The obligation for the accused to prove under the proviso to s. 
10(1) that the offence took place without his knowledge or that he 
exercised all due diligence to prevent such offence, arises only when the 
prosecution establishes that the requisite condition mentioned in sub-s. I 
that the partner was responsible for carrying on the business and was 
during the relevant time in charge of the business, is satisfied. [890E] 
2.2 In the instant case PW I had deposed that the statement 
regarding purchase of paddy and supply of levy rice was signed by 
appellant No. 3 as partner on behalf of the firm. There is no other 
evidence on record to indicate that other partners were also conducting 
the business of the firm wh<n the offence was committed. [890G-89IA] 
The conviction and sentence of appellant No. 3 are, therefore, 
maitltained. The conviction and sentence of appellant Nos. I, 2 and 4 are 
set aside. They are acquitted from all the charges. [891C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
No. 524 of 1989. 
E 
""' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.1989 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1986. 
M.C. Bhandare, (N.P.) and Gopal K. Bansal for the Appellants. 
F 
Mahabir Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. We grant special leave and pro-
ceed to dispose of this appeal. 
G 
\ t · 
On June 28, 1980 the appellants formed a partnership firm for 
the purpose of running a rice mill in the name and style of M/s Panna 
Lal Prem Nath Rice Mills at Shahpur. They have been convicted by the 
Presiding Officer of the Special Court, Kamal by judgment dated 
March 10, l986 for contravention of the provisions of the Haryana H 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979, read with section 7 of the 
J., 
B 
Essential Commodities Act. They were sentenced to six months' rigo-
rous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 each. The High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana has confirmed that conviction and sentence. 
They now appeal against conviction. 
The facts which gave rise to the charge, in so far as material, 
were these: In 1984, the firm purchased 5373 quintals 69 kgs. and 400 
gms of common p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.