Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Madan Lal And Chuni Lal
1991 Latest Caselaw 179 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that firm M/s. Madan Lal Chuni Lal, of which Chuni Lal and Madan Lal were partners was carrying on kiryana business at shop No. H-14/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On 25/10/75, a sample of Imli was purchased by the Food inspector from the said firm and on analysis it was found to be adulterated. The firm as well as two partners Chuni Lal and Madan Lal were prosecuted and tried under Section 7/16/17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2) During trial one of the accused Madan Lal died and the case proceeded against the firm and Chuni Lal and the trial Court convicted Chuni Lal under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and released him on probation on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace and being of good behavior for one year and also on giving an undertaking that he would not commit any offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, during this period. However the Court did not pronounce any judgment against Madan Lal the deceased partner and the firm on the plea that on the death of Madan Lal the firm automatically stood dissolved and as such the case against Madan Lal (deceased) an the firm stood abated.

(3) Aggrieved, Municipal Corporation filed this revision petition challenging the order of the trial Court on the ground that the proceedings cannot be said to have abated against the firm because at the time of commission of the offence partnership firm was in existence and both its partners were alive. Provisions of Food Adulteration Act with respect to liability of the firm cannot be construed in a manner so as to put an end to the criminal proceedings against the firm which was in existence when the offence was committed. The quantum of sentence awarded to Chuni Lal was also challenged. This Court discharged the rule 1ssued to Chuni Lal. However, the revision petition was admitted against the firm Madan Lal Chuni Lal.

(4) Though the case has been on the Board but none appeared on behalf of the parties and therefore, I proceed to decide this revision petition on the basis of record available.

(5) The sole question which requires determination in this case is whether on the death of one of the partners of the firm, criminal liability of the firm on its dissolution ceases or not ? A corporate body/firm has got separate existence apart from its individual members and when any adulterated food belonging to this corporate body/firm is sold, the society/firm makes itself liable to penalty provided under Section 7 of the Act because provision is clear that no person "shall" himself or by any person on his behalf "sell" or distribute any adulterated food or any other misbranded food etc. The firm is juristic person and is covered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but it cannot be construed as a person who acts on its own behalf and as such it cannot be absolved from criminal liability by simple operation of Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act.

(6) Criminal Procedure Code only recognises abatement as contemplated under Section 394 Cr.P.C. and not at any other stage. In view of this proposition of law, and undisputed facts in this regard, I accept this revision petition only on this point and set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court as far as dropping of the proceedings against firm Madan Lal Chuni Lal is concerned and remand the case back to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed against the firm in accordance with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and on the basis of evidence available on-record by giving a notice to the firm through its erstwhile partner Chuni Lal who had been representing the firm during trial. As the matter is very old one, therefore, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.