Full Judgment
N.K. JAIN, J.
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashment of the charge framed under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), by the A. C. J. M. (Economic Offences), Indore.
2. The petitioner and his late father Shri Gunvantrai, at the relevant time, were partners of firm G. M. Jani, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, dealing in manufacture of Ranvir Beedies. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division Bhilai, filed a complaint against the petitioner, his late father Gunvantrai and some other employees of the firm alleging commission of offence under Section 9 of the Act. It was alleged that they have evaded payment of excise duty leviable on their product under the Act. The late Shri Gunvantrai has, however, died during the pendency of the trial. The court below after recording evidence before charge has on April 23, 1992, framed charge under Section 9 which is sought to be quashed by the applicant.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the evidence led by the prosecution did not disclose that the petitioner was in any manner concerned with the affairs of the firm and responsible for the alleged evasion of duty.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and considered the evidentiary material, I am of the view that this petition must fail.
5. As already stated above the accused-applicant at the relevant time was a partner of the firm which allegedly evaded payment of duty under the Act. Section 9AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, deals with offences by companies and reads thus :
'9AA. Offences by companies.--(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time theoffence 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 offence 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 provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence ...
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 a firm.'
6. It will be thus seen that for the purpose of the Act a partnership firm is a company and every partner of such firm shall be deemed to be a director, who in a case where offence is committed by a company/firm shall, by virtue of Sub-section (1), be liable to be proceeded against and punishable unless of course he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
7. In the instant case, two departmental witnesses have been examined before charge by the prosecution to depose of the commission of offence by the firm and its partners and officers. It is pertinent to note here that the testimony of these witnesses remained unchallenged by the defence and no effort was made to show that the offence in question was committed without the knowledge of the applicant or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. The defence as set up in the revision memo was not even put to the witnesses leave aside the question of establishing innocence in terms of proviso to Section 9AA(1) of the Act.
8. Section 246(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, empowers the magistrate to frame a charge if he is satisfied that a prima facie case which the accused should be called upon to answer, has been made out. In the instant case, the learned magistrate on consideration of evidence recorded before charge was of the opinion that the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction of the accused. The view taken by the magistrate cannot be said to be unreasonable or unsupportable by evidence on record. I, therefore, decline interference and dismiss the revision.