JUDGMENT Gyanendra kumar, J. - These are two connected revisions arising out of the same trial. The four applicants in revision No. 321 of 1964 are partners of the firm, Messrs. Mahadeo Prasad Bala Prasad, who carry on agency business of kerosene oil at Gorakhpur, Basti and other places, with their head office at Gorakhpur. Chunni Lai, who is the applicant in revision No. 614 of 64, is their Munim at their Head Office depot, Gorakhpur; while the non-applicant, Har Narain is the Munim of the firm at their Basti shop. 2. At about mid-day of 6-3-63 P.W. Ram Deo, who is a retail licensee of kerosene oil at Basti, went to the Basti shop of the firm to purchase kerosene oil. There was sufficient stock of kerosene oil. But Hai Narain Munim told Ram Deo afore-said that the price of kerosene oil had gone up and he would not be in a position to sell the same to him without taking instructions from his employers at Gorakhpur. P. W. Rani Deo went to the Circle Inspector P.W. P. N. Rao, who accompanied him to the Basti Shop of the firm. They found Har Narain as well as Chunni Lai present there. The Inspector persuaded them to sell kerosene oil to P. W. Ram Dec and they agreed to do so. The Inspector went away to the neighbouring shop styled Murari Lai Banwari Lai for check up etc. While the Inspector was still there, P. W. Ram Deo again approached him complaining that in spite of their promise, Har Narain and Chunni Lai had refused to sell kerosene oil to him. The Inspector again went to the said shop along with Ram Deo and asked both the Munims as to why the oil was not being sold to the retail licensee, to which they replied that they would do so only after confirming the prevailing rates of kerosene oil from the Head Office. Therefore the applicants and Hai Narain aforesaid were charged under Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act X of 1955 read with the breach of conditions Nos. 10 and 12 of the license issued to the firm under the U. P. Kerosene Control Orders 1962. 3. The contention of the four applicants of revision No. 321 of 1964 is that they are only partners of the firm. 10 and 12 of the license issued to the firm under the U. P. Kerosene Control Orders 1962. 3. The contention of the four applicants of revision No. 321 of 1964 is that they are only partners of the firm. Krishna Kumar is said to be a student at Gorakhpur. Brij Narain also lives at Gorakhpur, while Smt. Rukmani Devi and Bala Prasad are said to be residing at Raipur. It is therefore, argued on their behelf that being at far off places, they had no knowledge about what had happened at the finn's agency shop Basti, nor had they given any instructions to their employees to refuse to sell kerosene oil to Rain Deo; hence there was no mens reason their part and as such the framing of charge against them was illegal and improper. 4. The plea of Chunni Lai applicant is that he was an employee of the firm at Gorakhpur and was not in charge of their Basti Shop, which was under the sole charge of Har Narain (non-applicant). Therefore no charge should have been framed against him. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the U. P. Kerosene Control Orders 1962(hereinafter referred to as 'the order'). 6. Conditions nos. 10 and 12 incorporated in the Form of Licence issued under the Order read: "10-The licensee shall not refuse to sell or withhold from sale, any kerosene in his possession, as the Licensing Authority may, be written, order, direct." "12-If the licensee contravenes any of the conditions of this licence . he shall also be punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955." 7. It has not been challenged that the Licensing Authority had by written order directed Messrs. Mahadeo Prasad Bala Prasad to sell kerosene oil to bonafide retail licence-holders. It is again not disputed that P. W. Ram Deo was one such retail licensee, and that he had gone to purchase oil from the firm's Basti Agency on the date and time alleged by the prosecution and further that he was not sold kerosene on his demand on the ground that instructions regarding rate of sale had to be obtained from the Gorakhpur Head Office. It would thus appear that Har Narain (non-applicant) had certainly refused to sell or at least withheld from sale kerosene to Ram Deo in violation of the conditions incorporated in the firm's licence and he was, therefore, liable to be punished under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act. 8. The sole question for consideration in these revisions, however, is whether the four partners of the firm and Chunni Lal, Munim of the Gorakhpur Head Office, were also liable for the offences. Section 10 of the Act runs as under: "10(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-Sec. (1), whereon offence under this Act has been committed by company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is 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 potence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and 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." 9. It would be clear from the above quoted section that the word 'company' includes a firm like the one in question. And if there has been any contravention of the order, the firm itself would be deemed to be guilty and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. There can be no manner of doubt that the firm named Messrs. Mahadeo Prasad Bala Prasad is only a collective name for its four partners, who are applicants in revision No. 321 of 64. There can be no manner of doubt that the firm named Messrs. Mahadeo Prasad Bala Prasad is only a collective name for its four partners, who are applicants in revision No. 321 of 64. The result would be that if there has been any breach of the Order, all the four partners shall be deemed to be guilty of its contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against. In other words, to start with, mens rea would be attributable to them in terms of the provisions of Section 10(l) of the Act and they would be prima facie liable to be charged for having committed the offence, whether or not they had any guilty mind in the matter. Thus there will be a presumption of their guilt at the initial stage. However, the provision to sub-Sec. (1) of Section 10 of the Act lays down-'Nothing contained in the 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,' meaning thereby that the burden of proof of want of mens rea rests upon the partners of the firm, who have to prove at the trial that the contravention had taken place without their knowledge, or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention, which is alleged to have taken place at another place, viz-Basti. Thus, in view of the special provision and procedure laid down by Section 10 of the Act, it cannot be said that the framing of the charge against the partners of the firm was bad in law and should be struck down. As already observed earlier, it would be open to the partners to prove their innocence by establishing want of their knowledge about the incident, which took place at Basti on 6-3-63. 10. So far as the case of Chunni Lal is concerned, it is true that he is employed as Head Munim at the firm's head office at Gorakhpur, and that he had gone to Basti agency of the firm on 6-3-63. However P. W. Ram Deo does not attribute any overt act on his part. He does not say that Chunni Lal had refused to sell kerosene oil to him, either before or after the Circle Inspector had asked Har Narain to sell kerosene to Ram Deo. However P. W. Ram Deo does not attribute any overt act on his part. He does not say that Chunni Lal had refused to sell kerosene oil to him, either before or after the Circle Inspector had asked Har Narain to sell kerosene to Ram Deo. There is no grievance against Chunni Lal even in the written complaint (Ext. Ka 1) submitted by P. W. Ram Deo. But in his written report as well as in his deposition P. W., P. N. Rao, Circle Inspector, clearly states that when he went second time to the Basti shop of the firm along with Ram Deo complainant, Chunni Lal applicant had arrived there from Gorakhpur and that he as well as Har Narain had both refused to sell kerosene without obtaining instructions from their Gorakhpur Head Office about the retail sale price of the oil. It is true that Chunni Lal is not attached to the firm's agency 'business at Basti, yet on the relevant date and time he was present at the Basti shop and had (at least according to the Circle Inspector) actually refused to allow the sale of kerosene to Ram Deo on the pretext that instructions had first to be obtained from the Head Office regarding the prevailing retail price of the commodity. Therefore the case of Chunni Lal applicant would clearly fall within the ambit of sub-Section (2) to Section 10 of the Act, inasmuch as the offence of non-delivery of kerosene to Ram Deo was at least with the consent or connivance of Chunni Lal, who was the Head Munim of the firm and was, as such, 'an officer of the company.' In order to make this clause applicable it is not essential that the officer of the company must necessarily belong to any particular branch. Chunni Lal, being admittedly an Officer of the company, and being present on the spot at the relevant date and time when the offence is said to have been committed at Basti, he shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against.' There is, therefore, a prima facie case against him as well, in view of the special provisions of sub-Cl. (2) to Section 10 of the Act. The framing of the charge against him cannot, therefore, be considered to be illegal so as to be struck down. (2) to Section 10 of the Act. The framing of the charge against him cannot, therefore, be considered to be illegal so as to be struck down. It shall, of course, be open to him to establish his innocence in the matter at a subsequent stage of the trial. 11. In the result, I find t t both the revisions are without force and are accordingly dismissed. The record of the case shall be sent down to the Magistrate concerned to proceed Further in the matter with all expedition.