JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - The Petitioner, Kisanlal Saraf has been found guilty u/s 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946), for contravention of the provisions of the license granted to his master under the Orissa Cotton Yarn Control Order 1948. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/-. He was tried along with his master Lakhman Das. Lakhman Das was convicted by the Trial Court but was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. Admittedly the Petitioner is the Munim of Lakhman Das who is described in the prosecution report as the proprietor of the firm of Lakhmania Brothers of Khariar. The licensee is Lakhman Das Firm. But curiously enough the prosecution did not choose to produce the actual license. All that can be gathered from the prosecution report is that Lakhman Das carries on business as a dealer in cotton yarn and styles himself as a firm going by the name of Lakhmania Brothers. The lower appellate Court held that Section 9 of Act XXIV of 1946 applied to the facts of the case and that the Petitioner, as an agent of the firm, is liable for contravention of the terms of the license. That Section reads as follow: 9. Offences by corporations: If the person contravening an order made u/s 3 is a company or other body-corporate, every director, manager, secretary or other officer or agent thereof shall, unless he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent such contravention, be deemed to be guilty of such contravention. Undoubtedly, if the organization of which the Petitioner is the agent is a company or other corporate body, Section 9 of the Act would directly apply and the Petitioner would be liable constructively for the offence. No attempt was, however, made by the prosecution to prove that the firm is a company or other body corporate. On the other hand the description of Lakhman Das as the proprietor of the firm leads me to think that there is no corporation at all, as such, in existence and that the firm is the sale concern of the proprietor Lakhman Das. 2. It is urged for the prosecution that even a joint Hindu trading family would be a body corporate for the purposes of this section. 2. It is urged for the prosecution that even a joint Hindu trading family would be a body corporate for the purposes of this section. I am not convinced that the argument can be accepted as sound. This is a penal provision making a person constructively liable for violation of the terms of a license. One would expect the language to be more explicit a as to bring in all persons contemplated under the law. The language is clear when it contemplates offences by corporations. Though in a sense a Hindu joint family may be figuratively described as a corporation, I do not think that the Legislature had in mind a joint Hindu family when it provided for offences committed by Companies or a body corporate. 3. I would accordingly hold that Section 9 does not apply to the facts of the present case and that the Petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence of violating the term of the license. I would therefore allow this revision, acquit the Petitioner of the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him forthwith. Final Result : Allowed