JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this criminal revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 292 of 1982 which is by the petitioners co-accused. ( 2. ) BOTH the aforesaid revision petitions arise out of the judgment dated 1-5-1982 delivered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1982 arising out of the judgment dated 8-2-1982 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamnod in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1981. ( 3. ) BY the impugned judgment, the petitioners Smt. Harikanta and ramesh have both been convicted under section 7 (l) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for committing breach of clause 6 (1) (maintenance of accounts etc.) of the Madhya Pradesh essential Commodities (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the order) made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Act. They have been sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner Ramesh has been further convicted under the Act for contravention of clause 5 of the Order (Dealers not to withhold from sale), and similarly sentenced. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, the petitioner Harikanta is the partner of the firm Agrawal Automobiles which has its petrol pump at dhamnod. The other petitioner Ramesh is the servant in the employment of the firm and works at the petrol pump. ( 5. ) ON 11-10-1979, the petitioner Ramesh despite availability of stock refused to sell diesel to Dayanand (P. W. 2) and thereby there was contravention of clause 5 of the Order. The firm did not maintain accounts as required by clause 6 of the Order. ( 6. ) FOR the aforesaid contraventions, the partners of the firm and ramesh were prosecuted. Ultimately, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, ( 7. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Harikanta is that there is no proof that she was in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. It being so, the provision of section 10 of the Act was not at all attracted and her conviction is, therefore, unsustainable. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Harikanta is that there is no proof that she was in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. It being so, the provision of section 10 of the Act was not at all attracted and her conviction is, therefore, unsustainable. It is further contended that the prosecution having failed to establish that the turnover of the firm during the preceding year exceeded rs. one lac, the liability for maintenance of accounts under clause 6 (1) of the Order could also not be fastened on her. Reliance was placed on the decision in State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh ( AIR 1971 SC 447 ) ( 8. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Ramesh is that on the prosecutions own showing he was merely a servant of the firm and could not be convicted for contravention of clauses 5 and 6 (1) of the Order, under which the liability is of the dealer alone. ( 9. ) IT is pertinent to reproduce clauses 5 and 6 (1) of the Order: -Clause 5:- Dealers not to withhold from sale-A dealer shall not withhold from sale any essential commodity ordinarily kept by him for sale. Clause 6 (1):-Maintenance of accounts etc.- Every dealer, other than a retail dealer, whose turnover during the preceding year does not exceed one lakh rupees shall maintain proper accounts of the purchase and sale of essential commodity showing the price of purchase, price of sale as the transactions take place and the balance in stock on each day at the close of the day. Clause 2 (a): -The order defines dealer in these terms :-Clause 2 (a) :-dealer means a person who carries on the business of selling by retail or wholesale or storing for sale by retail or wholesale any commodity, whether or not such business is carried on in addition to any other business, but does not include a hawker or peddler or an oil company, storage depot or installation wherefrom no sales are made to general public. turnover and a year have respectively been defined under clauses 2 (h)and 2 (i) of the Order as under:-Clause 2 (h) :-turnover means the aggregate of the amount of sale prices received and receivable by a dealer in respect of sale of goods, during a year but after deducting the amount if any, refunded by the dealer to a purchaser, in respect of any of the goods purchased and returned by the purchaser during the year; clause 2 (i):-year means the twelve months ending on the day to which the accounts maintained by a dealer are made up. ( 10. ) SECTION 10 of the Act may usefully be reproduced. It reads as under;-Section 10: - Offences by companies : - (1) 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 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 the diligence to prevent such contravention. (2) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a 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 of company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation:-For the purpose of this section: (a) company means any body corporate, and includes a firm of other association of individuals; and (b) director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. ( 11. ) IN the instant case, it is proved by the evidence of Food Inspect tor Varjan Mehta (P. W. 5) that on the relevant date, sufficient stock of diesel was available for sale. ( 11. ) IN the instant case, it is proved by the evidence of Food Inspect tor Varjan Mehta (P. W. 5) that on the relevant date, sufficient stock of diesel was available for sale. Apart from other evidence, the version of dayanand (P. W. 2) and Mangilal (P. W. 3) is that the petitioner Ramesh was running the petrol pump and it was he who had withheld sale of diesel. I find that on the material on record, it is amply proved that the petitioner ramesh was the servant of the firm and while running the petrol pump had withheld sale of diesel. It is also established that the firm had not maintained accounts. ( 12. ) THE question is whether the petitioner Ramesh can be held liable for contraventions of clauses 5 and 6 (1) of the Order. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses reveals that liability thereunder is cast on the dealer. It is prosecutions own case that the petitioner Ramesh was merely a servant. Therefore, it has to be held that his convictions for contraventions of clauses 5 and 6 (1) of the Order are unwarranted and have to be set aside. The position under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is quite different. ( 13. ) NOW, I take up the case of the petitioner Harikanta. She has not been held liable for withholding sale of diesel by the petitioner Ramesh. The only question, therefore, is regarding her criminal liability under section 10 of the Act for non-maintenance of accounts as provided under clause 6 (1) of the Order. ( 14. ) PENAL consequences to which an accused in a criminal trial is exposed often include loss of liberty. It is only in the fitness of things that an accused in a criminal trial starts with a presumption of innocence in his favour. Therefore, for fastening criminal liability strict proof of offence is insisted upon. Reasonable inferences on proved facts apart, surmises and conjectures can certainly have no place in a criminal trial. ( 15. ) THE condition precedent for the liability to maintain accounts has to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, for fastening criminal liability strict proof of offence is insisted upon. Reasonable inferences on proved facts apart, surmises and conjectures can certainly have no place in a criminal trial. ( 15. ) THE condition precedent for the liability to maintain accounts has to be proved by the prosecution. In the instant case, the prosecution has not at all proved that during the preceding year the firm had a turnover of rupees one lakh and, therefore, it could not be held that the firm, though a dealer within the meaning of the Order, comes in that category which under Clause 6 (1) of the Order is required to maintain accounts. ( 16. ) IN the result, both the revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated 1-5-1982 passed by the first Additional Sessions judge, Indore disposing of Criminal Appeals Nos. 16 of 1982 and 17 of 1982 is set aside. The convictions of the petitioners and the sentences passed against them are also set aside. Amount of fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them. Revisions allowed.