Judgment : Of the six accused in the case the first accused Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli, which alone has been convicted and sentenced has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that false entries have been made in the Bill Books as though rice has been supplied against the ration cards and then eight bags of rice were stealthily transported from the Fair Price Shop in a cart during night and some of the villagers on coming to know of this stopped the cart. It appears A-5 Salesman was the person who was transporting and A-6 was the driver and owner of the bullock cart and A-5 immediately ran away. The villagers gave information to P.W.1 Tahsildar and he arrived at the scene at 4.00 p.m. on the next day. After recording statements from the villagers he gave a complaint to the police Ex.P-1 against A-5 and A-6. 3. Charge sheet was filed not only against A-5 and A-6, but also as against other accused A-1 to A-4, A-1 being as stated above Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, A-2 its Assistant Manager, A-3 its Area Supervisor and A-4 godown keeper. The charge was under Clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Secs.3, 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. All the accused denied the charge, as aforementioned A-1, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Tirunelveli alone has been convicted and all other accused have been acquitted. 5. Now in the appeal Mr.M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-first accused would submit that the conviction of A-1 is illegal and the facts do not at all warrant any conviction. 6. On carefully considering the matter I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel. Now, the facts stated above show that it was A-5 salesman who was transporting the eight bags of rice. The evidence further shows that it was he who made the false entries in the bill books as if rice had been distributed to the cardholders. These facts would clearly show that he is guilty of some offences. 7. The question is how A-1 is guilty of any offence. The evidence further shows that it was he who made the false entries in the bill books as if rice had been distributed to the cardholders. These facts would clearly show that he is guilty of some offences. 7. The question is how A-1 is guilty of any offence. The main charge is violation of Clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, herein after referred to as the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities Order. This Clause 6(2) reads thus: “6(2) the authorised dealer with whom the family card is registered shall on production of such card by the holder, make necessary entries in the card and supply the schedule commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is eligible.” It is not in dispute that A-1 is an authorised dealer. I do not understand how Clause 6(2) is violated at all by A-1, from the facts of the prosecution case stated above. This clause is to the effect that if a family card which is registered with the authorised dealer is produced by the cardholder the authorised dealer shall after making necessary entries in the card supply the scheduled commodities (not exceeding the quantity for which he is eligible). It is not understandable how A-1 has violated this when A-5 has made false entries in the bills as if rice has been supplied to cardholders. Therefore, clearly no offence under Clause 6(2) is committed at all. 8. Even if any offence is committed under this clause again, it is difficult to understand how A-1 the authorised dealer can be said to have committed an offence. In this connection, it appears the court below has referred to Clause 14(1)(a). This clause is as follows: “14. Further condition to be observed by the authorised retail shops: (1) Every authorised dealer shall, (a) be held responsible for all the acts of commission and omission of his partners, agents, servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the shop. (b)......” This means for any commission and omission of the partners, agents, servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the fair price shop visa-vis the Regulation Order, the authorised dealer also is responsible. Certainly, the authorised dealer cannot be made responsible for any intentional offence committed by its employee. Therefore, Clause 14(1)(a) is inapplicable to the facts of the case. 9. Certainly, the authorised dealer cannot be made responsible for any intentional offence committed by its employee. Therefore, Clause 14(1)(a) is inapplicable to the facts of the case. 9. The lower court has also referred to Sec.10 of the Essential Commodities Act. This section relates to offence by companies. It is not known what offence, if it can be said to be a company, A-1 has committed. A reading of the section would show that if a company has committed an offence contravening an order made under Sec.3, then every person who, at the time the of fence 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. From the facts stated above, clearly it was A-5, the salesman who alone has committed an offence which may be theft or breach of trust or making false entries, and by no stretch of imagination or reasoning it can be said that A-1 the authorised dealer has committed any offence. As per Sec.10 of the Essential Commodities Act, if the company has committed an offence, then, the persons who were responsible for the conduct of the company can be deemed to be guilty and not vice versa. Therefore, to hold that from the facts of the case, A-1 the authorised dealer has committed an offence is not at all acceptable. 10. Hence, clearly the conviction of A-1 is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction of A-1 and sentence imposed on it are set aside. The fine amount if had been paid it shall be refunded.