9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (4) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s preferred against that acquittal to this Court in C.A. No. 181 of 1950. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the defaulter was the firm and it is the firm that should have been prosecuted and the individual or any partner cannot separately be prosecuted.* Subba Rao, J., who heard the appeal observed as follows: "A combined reading of the aforesaid sections establishes that a firm is a person and that for the purpose of assessment the firm is treated as one entity and that in default of payment pursuant to the notice the firm is liable to the prosecuted. It is true that under rule 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules if a dealer or licensee enters into a partnership with regard to his business he sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear, he cannot be prosecuted again. At any rate, although the firm may be prosecuted, he, one of the partners, having been acquitted *See [1951] 2 S.T.C. 53. cannot be joined in the prosecution against the other. The lower court upheld the objection and not only acquitted Jacob Nadar, but also acquitted the other person on the ground that the other person also cannot be individually prosecuted in the absence of Jacob Nadar. It is against the acquittal that the State has preferred this appeal. The question now is whether Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code will apply to the facts of this case. Rule 19 of the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act says: "If a dealer or licensee enters into partnership in regard to his busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve undergone the sentence of imprison- ment for non-payment of fine in the previous case, he could still be made to undergo imprisonment for non-payment of fine. That certainly cannot be the principle of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code or even the principle underlying prosecutions against firms. The difficulty in this case has arisen not on account of anything done by the accused but on account of the rather careless way in which the authorities have sought to prosecute the firm. They should have known that when the assessee was a firm, it is the firm that should be prosecuted and if in the first instance itself the firm had been prosecuted represented by its partners, this difficulty would never have arisen. If there is any diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
