Judgment : ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the conviction imposed upon the appellant, senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madrai, in s. T. C. No. 7 of 1986, on the file of Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), madurai, by judgment dated 5-6-1986, for an offence under clause 6 (3) of the tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card system) Order read with Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: the appellant is the Senior Regional Manager of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies corporation, Madurai. He was tried alongwith two other accused, before the trial Court. A-2 Selvakumar was the salesman of Amutham Super Market, which was under the control of the above said Corporation. On 31-8-1985, at about 5. 30 p. m. P. W. 4 Marudaiya, Inspector of Police,c. S. ,c. I. D. , along with his men stopped a bullock-cart driven by A-3 Selvam, wherein he took 8 barrels and when it was searched, they found to contain palmolive oil in the barrels with the writings TNCSC VKP 4142. On interrogation A-3 stated that A-2, Selvakumar, the salesman of Amudham Super Market despatched these palmolive oil barrels to a shop in a different area at Madurai. At that time he was not having any bills or permit. Then P. W. 4 seized the two barrels containing the oil and six empty barrels under Ext. P-1 mahazar. P. W. 4 took sample from each barrel in three bottles and served the copy of Ext. P-4 and sample to the 3rd accused selvam. ( 3 ) ON 1-9-1985, P. W. 4, the Inspector of Police went to the concerned shop, where A-2 Selvakumar was working as a salesman. On inspection, P. W. 4 found six barrels in the shop, whereas the register shows eight barrels. On these materials, after investigation, the Inspector of Police filed a charge-sheet against a-1 to A-3 under clauses 6 (2) and (3) of T. N. S. C. (Regulation of Distribution by card System) Order read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the E. C. Act, in particular against A-2 for having made arrangements for selling the palmolive oil in the black market with the help of A-1 and A 3. In the charge-sheet the appellant was arrayed as A-1, since he was the authorised dealer and under the relevan t rules, he was responsible for the distribution of the essential commodities. On behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. l to 4 were examined and Exts. P-1 to p-4 were marked. ( 4 ) WHEN the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr. P. C, they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, D. W. I was examined. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the Trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary, convicted A-1 (appellant) and A-2 under clause 6 (3) of the Tamil nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System)Order and convicted A-3 under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, and dealt with the appellant as referred to earlier. Against this judgment, the present appeal has been preferred in this Court, by A-1 alone, the Senior Regional manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai. ( 6 ) MR. V. N. Gowry Shanker, learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence and contended that the conviction upon the corporation/appellant is illegal, inasmuch as there is no direct evidence against him. I heard Mr. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, who countered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant. ( 7 ) THE facts culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would show that A-2, the salesman arranged for despatching the oil barrels through a-3. As such, there is a dear evidence, that A-2 and A-3 were guilty of the offence, with which they were charged. ( 8 ) THE main charges against the appellant A-1 are violation of clauses 6 (2)and 6 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order Clause 6 (2) of the order reads thus: "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 scheduled commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is eligible. " Clause 6 (3) of the order is as follows:"the authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder. " The facts of this case, have no relevance with these clauses. " Clause 6 (3) of the order is as follows:"the authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder. " The facts of this case, have no relevance with these clauses. Under these clauses, the authorised dealer shall on production of the ration card, make necessary entries in the card and supply to the card-holders and also he shall not supply the commodities against any family card not registered with him or to non-card-holders. It is not the case of the prosecution that A-1/appellant did not supply any scheduled commodities to cardholders on production of the ration card or he refused to make entries in the card with reference to the supply of the same or he supplied the scheduled commodities to non-card-holders. In this connection clause 14 (1) (a) is quite relevant. 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. " So, under this clause, the authorised dealer shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission and omission on the part of the servants working in the fair price shop. But the question is whether there is any material available in this case, to show that A-1, Senior Regional Manager of T. N. Civil Supplies corporation is liable under the provisions of criminal law, for the acts of omission and commission of his servants. Certainly, in the absence of any material, the appellant, the authorised dealer cannot be made liable for any intentional offence committed by his employees. ( 9 ) MR. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that under Sections 10 and 10-C of the Essential Commodities Act, conviction can be imposed on the appellant, who is an authorised dealer/officer. Section 10 of the E. C. Act relates to the offence committed by the Company. A reading of this Section would show that if a Company has committed an offence contravening an order made under Section 3 of the Act, then every person responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, is liable for the said contravention. Section 10c of the Act relates to the presumption of culpability. A reading of this Section would show that if a Company has committed an offence contravening an order made under Section 3 of the Act, then every person responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, is liable for the said contravention. Section 10c of the Act relates to the presumption of culpability. As per this Section, only when the Company has committed an offence and only when the prosecution adduces the materials to show that the Company has committed the offence, then the persons who are responsible for the conduct of the company can be deemed to be guilty. Merely because clause 14 (1) (a) says, that the authorised dealer can be held to be responsible in the absence of any material, the appellant cannot be held liable for an offence that has been committed by the salesman/a-2 in this case. In fact, Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that there is no material to show that a-2 and A-3 have committed this offence of removing and taking away the. essential commodities, without supplying to the ration card-holders, with the consent of the appellant, nor any material was placed to show that A-1 had the knowledge, when the above offence was committed by A-2 and A-3. Therefore, it cannot be held that from the facts of the case, the appellant, an authorised dealer, has committed the said offence. ( 10 ) ON similar facts this Court had an occasion to deal with clause 6 (2) and clause 14 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order, in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation ltd. , Tirunelveli vs. Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C. I. D. , Tirunelveli and observed as follows: "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 that Court below has referred to clause 14 (1) (a ). . . . . . 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 vis-a-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 employees. Therefore, clause 14 (1) (a) is inapp. . . 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 vis-a-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 employees. Therefore, clause 14 (1) (a) is inapp. icable to the facts of the case. ( 11 ) THE lower Court has also referred to Section 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 Section 3, then every person who, at the time the offence 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 this Section 10 if the Company has committed an offence then the persons who were responsible for the conduct of the company also 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. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, by the Trial Court are illegal and unsustainable. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Gowrishankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, the Trial Court based upon its verdict only on the basis of some decisions relating to some Sections with reference to the Company, under Food Adulteration Act. As such, those decisions could not be applicable to this case. So, I have no hesitation to accept the submissions made by Mr. Gowrishankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant. As such, those decisions could not be applicable to this case. So, I have no hesitation to accept the submissions made by Mr. Gowrishankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant. ( 13 ) IN view of the above fact, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/a-1 by the Court below are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant/a-1 is acquitted of the charge framed against him.