S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 21-1-1978 whereby cognizance under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was taken against the petitioners. A challan was filed against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. It is alleged that the petitioners are the partners of M/s Mool Chand Himmatram & Co.. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that S.H.O. police station, Banswara along with the D. S. O. went to search the premises which had a board of Mool Chand Himmatram & Co. The shop was checked when the petitioners were not present 99 bags of wheat were found in this premises and it was further found that the Firm bad no licence to deal the wheat. Thus the petitioner contravened the provisions of the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973. After investigation, a challan was filed and the cognizance was taken. It is not disputed that no licence as required by the said order has been obtained by this Firm. However, it is seriously disputed that the petitioners were partners of this Firm and were responsible for the conduct of its business. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no reasons to believe that the petitioners were not partners of the Firm or that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of this Firm. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. I have gone through the case file the learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any evidence to show that the Petitioners were the partners of Moolchand Himmatram &Co. On the contrary, there is a letter dated 6-6-1974 from Commercial Taxes Officer that Moolchand was the sole proprietor of Moolchand Himmatram & Co. Further there is no evidence on the record of the case to indicate or disclose that the petitioners were Incharge of and were responsible for the conduct of business of this Firm. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that a Firm is a Company within the meaning of section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. This section reads as under; - "Offences by companies-(l) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly ; Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or it attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against the punished accordingly. Explanation - For the purposes of this section - (a) "Company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals and (b) "Director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm." In view of explanation to section 10, it can hardly be disputed that company includes a firm or other association of individuals. As already observed, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners were the partners of Moolchand Himmatram & Co. Further the evidence is completely lacking that any of the petitioner was In-charge of, and was responsible to, the firm for the conduct of business. Thus it appears that there is no evidence on the basis of which further prosecution of the petitioners can be justified. I am aware that the revision by Kanhaiyalal and Vinod Kumar is not within limitation and it is within limitation only vis-a-vis petitioner Sumitra. However, the continuation of a frivolous prosecution can be quashed under the inherent powers of this Court.
(2.) In the result the prosecution of the petitioners Sumitradevi, Kanhiyalal, Vinodkumar is quashed in criminal case No. 138/78 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. The revision petition is accepted. Sd/- S. N. Deedwania, J. Revision Accepted - Prosecution of petitioners Quashed.;