A.K.CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) THESE two rev is ion a I applications heard together seek to quash a proceeding pending against the petitioners under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act before a Judge of a Special Court constituted under the said Act for violation of certain provisions of the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yard Control Order, 1960 promulgated under Section 3 of the Act
(2.) ON hearing the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents, it appears that the alleged offence was committed by the dealer was no other than a partnership firm carrying on business at 24, Park Street, Calcutta. In the F.I.R. this firm has been described as accused No. 1 and in the Charge Sheet though it was not made an accused, still the petitioners have been described as partners of the firm. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the alleged offence was committed by the firm. The petitioners, who are admittedly partners of the fine, could, therefore, be made vicariously responsible for the offence committed by the fine but to prosecute them there should have been an averment in the charge sheet that as partners of the firm, they were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of its business to the firm. Unfortunately, there was no such averment in the charge sheet. The learned Advocate appearing for the State has drawn my attention to the seizure list wherein it has been stated that certain documents were seized from Sita Devi one of the partners of the said firm suggesting that she was in its charge and was responsible to it for the conduct of its business.
(3.) I am unable to appreciate this contention because what law requires is an averment in the complaint whose place is taken in the instant case by the Charge Sheet and in the absence of such an averment in the complaint, a mere statement in a seizure list that certain documents were seized from one of the partners of the firm is not enough to show that such partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business to the firm. In these circumstances, the conclusion must be that the charge sheet does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioners and the learned Judge was not right in taking cognizance and, accordingly, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed.;