Judgment :- 1. The accused has come up in revision against the conviction and sentence of fine passed on him by the District Magistrate of Tellicherry in a prosecution under the Malabar Market Committee bye-laws for his failure to submit returns as provided in bye-law 25(6). The notice preceding the prosecution was issued against Messrs. Tribhuvandas Gokuldas Khimji. Though the notice was issued under this address, in the written complaint made before the court, the accused was shown as "Tribhuvandas Gokuldas Khimji, Managing Partner, Messers. Tribhuvandas Gokuldas Khimji, Merchants and Commission Agents, Cannanore". The accused denied the charge. He stated that he is not a licensee and is not bound under any law to submit any returns. Learned Magistrate repelling this plea, has entered the conviction. The conviction cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. In the first place, the law is settled that where a firm" is registered as a dealer and for offence committed by the dealer one of the partners is picked out and is prosecuted and convicted, the conviction is unsustainable in law. "Whenever a firm is to be prosecuted, it is obvious that one cannot pick and choose which partner is to be prosecuted, as it would amount to dissecting the body of partners constituting the firm, which is not permissible under the law. The firm being the 'dealer' the entire firm has to be prosecuted." Nabin Chandra v. The State (1967 Crl L. J. 1714). To the same effect is the ruling of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. K Jacob Nadar (1951 II Sales Tax Cases 53) wherein it has been observed: "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 be prosecuted Though Jacob may be made liable if the proper procedure had been followed as a partner of the firm he is not liable as the firm is the person who made the default and who should have been prosecuted." Pwl on behalf of the Market Committee has stated in his evidence that he has no direct knowledge of the accused's trade. He is positive that the accused had no dealings with the Market Committee during the period. He is positive that the accused had no dealings with the Market Committee during the period. He has also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the sending of Ext. P1. Ext. P4 according to him, is the approved form for submitting the returns. The approved form will be sent to the party and the return will be submitted in that form. From Ext. P4 it is seen that it is the form for weekly returns. But the accused has been prosecuted as is seen from the statement of Pwl for his failure to send monthly return. Even about the sending of Ext P4 form, Pwl has no knowledge. He further says that Ext. P4 is the present specimen form ('present' means 1970 when he gave evidence) but the prosecution was for failure to submit returns for the period between 1-1-1965 and 30-9-1965. From these circumstances it is evident that there is nothing to connect the present accused with the crime. The firm has not even been made an accused and the complaint in the circumstances, must be treated as ill-advised. There is also the further fact that bye-law 30(1) has also not been complied with in initiating the prosecution in the present case. Bye-law 30(1) reads: "Any prosecution of violation of any of the provisions of the Act (Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act 1933), Rules or bye-laws can be launched only by a resolution of the committee." This is a condition precedent to the validity of the prosecution and there is nothing to show whether any such resolution was ever passed authorising the present prosecution. No resolution is also placed before the court for its perusal. In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence entered by the court below cannot be sustained. Therefore, the said conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. Fine, if any, paid will be refunded to him.