Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24th May, 1983, passed by the C. J. M. , Jaopur City, Jaipur, by which, he acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 3/7 of theessential Commodities Act. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, a report was submitted on 14th Dec. , 1972, to Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, who forwarded it to Police Station Manak Chowk. Therein, it was alleged that on 26th Oct. 1972, the shop of Mis. Lalchand-Bodhamal was inspected in presence of Ramchandra and Vasumal, and at the time of inspection 1. 10 quintals of wheat was found less according to the Stockregister and 66 slips of ration-cards were found at the shop. Irregular entries were found in the Stock-Register about the wheat and sugar. ( 3 ) AFTER usual investigation, a challan was submitted under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act ("the Act ). The learned lower court did not find the accused persons guilty and acquitted them. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned C. J. M. , Jaipur, has committed error in acquitting the accused persons. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents argued that on the legal point, the entire prosecution case falls on the ground, which, according to him is that according to Section 10 of the Act, if the person contravening an order made under Section 3 of me Act, 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 the prosecuted. In the present case, the firm M/s. Lalchand-Bodhamal was inspected, but no challan was filed against the said firm. Company means a body-corporate and it includes a firm or other associations of individuals, Therefore, the firm Lalchand-Bodhamal is covered under the definition of company, and so, it was the duty of the prosecution to have prosecuted the firm M/s. Lalchand-Bodhamal. In this case, the respondents have been prosecuted, but it has not been established that these respondents were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. In this case, the respondents have been prosecuted, but it has not been established that these respondents were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. If they have been found responsible or if the allegation against them was that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm MIs. Lalchand-Bodhamal, they could be prosecuted. But, there is no such allegation. Therefore, the prosecution of the respondents was not according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, and on this very ground, the order of acquittal passed by the learned lower Court, can be sustained. ( 6 ) IT was also stated by Mr. Sohan Lal Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondents that Bodhamal, the proprietor of the firm M/s. Lalchand-Bodhamal, has already expired. ( 7 ) I have gone through the record of the case including the judgment of the Trial Court, and fmd no infirmity therein to interfere in the order of acquittal. There is thus no substance in this appeal, and hence, it is hereby dismissed.