Order.- These two petitions filed by accused No. 2 arise in the following circumstances: Accused No. 2 and five others in Criminal Case No. 996 of 1961 are partners of a firm known as “Annappa Sabarad and Annappa Kologi” doing business at Bijapur. Dealing firstly with Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962, I will state the facts relevant for the purpose. The firm was assessed finally for sales tax for the period between 24th October, 1957 to nth November, 1958. The order of assessment was made on the 17th of March, 1959. A notice of demand was issued to the dealer viz., the firm, on 27th March, 1959, calling upon it to pay the tax and penalty by the 16th of April, 1959. It appears that this notice was received by the present petitioner (accused No. 2) and two other partners. The assessee having failed to pay the assessment, criminal proceedings were started against the six partners of the firm under section 29(1)(d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Bijapur held all the accused guilty of the offence under section 29(1)(d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and sentenced each one of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10. Against this order only accused No. 2, the present petitioner, preferred a revision application in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition. It is against this order of dismissal that this Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962 has been presented by accused No. 2. Mr. Malimath, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has rot disputed the facts viz., that the tax and the penalty have not been paid on or about the due date. But what has been contended by the learned Advocate is that the prosecution is bad since the demand notice has not been served on the other partners of the firm and unless all the partners have been served, it cannot be said that the firm has failed to pay the assessment on the due date. But what has been contended by the learned Advocate is that the prosecution is bad since the demand notice has not been served on the other partners of the firm and unless all the partners have been served, it cannot be said that the firm has failed to pay the assessment on the due date. A further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, in order that a notice to a partner may be held to be a good notice binding on the firm, it must be shown that the partner on whom the notice has been served is one who habitually acts in the business of the firm or any matter relating to the affairs of the firm and unless that has been done, it cannot be held that a notice served on some of the partners is proper notice and if so, the prosecution is not legal and the conviction cannot be sustained. Before I proceed to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I shall first deal with the relevant provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1957. Under section 5, every dealer shall pay for each year, tax on his total turnover at the rate of two per cent. of such turnover. Then there are provisos and sub-sections. But suffice it to note that the liability is on every dealer. Now the word ‘dealer’ has been defined under section 2 (k) of the Act which states: "Dealer" means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods in the State of Mysore directly or otherwise whether for cash or deferred payment or for other valuable consideration, and includes......................" . Under the First Explanation to this clause, a firm is a dealer. Therefore, the firm of which accused No. 2 is a partner is a dealer and as such it was assessed for sales tax for the period mentioned before. When it is assessed, the firm becomes an assessee. The term ‘assessee’ has been defined as follows: "‘assessee ‘ means a person by whom a tax is payable ". The firm by itself is incapable of acting. It acts only through its partners. Therefore, though the firm is an assessee, every partner of the firm is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the tax. The term ‘assessee’ has been defined as follows: "‘assessee ‘ means a person by whom a tax is payable ". The firm by itself is incapable of acting. It acts only through its partners. Therefore, though the firm is an assessee, every partner of the firm is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the tax. Rule 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, provides for a notice after final assessment is made. Under that rule it is mentioned: "After making the final assessment................ if any amount is found to be due from the dealer towards the final assessment, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in Form 6 and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded within the time and in the manner specified in the notice........................" In pursuance of this rule the assessing authority served on the dealer i.e., the firm of ‘ Annappa Sabarad and Annappa Kololgi’ a notice in Form No. 6 calling upon it to pay the assessment found due for the period and this notice was accepted by the petitioner (accused No. 2) along with two of the other partners. But the assessment and the penalty were not paid on the last date of payment mentioned in the notice and thereafter prosecution had been started under section 29 (1) (d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act against all the partners. Mr. Malimath’s contention is that in the absence of service of notice on other partners, it could not be held that the notice issued is a notice on the dealer. In my opinion, this submission cannot be accepted. Under the Explanation to the definition clause ‘dealer’, the firm is included as a dealer and what is required under the rule is to serve a notice on the dealer and the dealer in this case being the firm cannot by itself, accept the notice but some of the partners must accept it and accordingly accused No. 2 along with two others accepted the notice issued to the dealer. Therefore, in my opinion, the notice addressed to the dealer and accepted by accused No. 2 and two others is a sufficient notice as required by law. Mr. Malimath has brought to my notice a decision reported in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar1. Therefore, in my opinion, the notice addressed to the dealer and accepted by accused No. 2 and two others is a sufficient notice as required by law. Mr. Malimath has brought to my notice a decision reported in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar1. In that case, the firm was a dealer and it had two partners The notice of demand was served on one of the partners and it was accepted on behalf of the firm. The tax was not paid in time. However, criminal proceeding was started against the other partner on whom notice was not served It was contended that the prosecution was bad and that contention was accepted by his Lordship holding that the prosecution against one partner only was bad The assessee in that case was a firm of two partners and therefore the prosecution must proceed against the two partners of the firm and it was not open to the authorities to proceed against only one of the partners. In that view of the matter it was held that the prosecution was bad. But, in this case, as I stated earlier, all the partners have been prosecuted and therefore, it could not be said that the assessee has not been proceeded against. This case is also an authority for the proposition that a demand notice served on one of the partners of the firm is a valid notice on the assessee and, with due respect, I agree that that is a correct conclusion. To the same effect is another decision reported in Behara Lachanna Patnaick In re1. That decision follows the earliers decision reported in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar2. The effect of these two decisions is that in order to proceed criminally against the firm, the prosecution must be against all the partners of the firm and not only against some of the partners and if the prosecution has been started only against some partners then, such a prosecution must be held to be illegal. In this case the prosecution had been started under section 29(1)(d) against all the partners and therefore the same must be held to be legal and valid. The other point which has been submitted by Mr. In this case the prosecution had been started under section 29(1)(d) against all the partners and therefore the same must be held to be legal and valid. The other point which has been submitted by Mr. Malimath for my consideration is that under section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, it must be proved that the partner who has accepted the notice is one who habitually acts in the business of the firm or any matter relating to the affairs of the firm and that has not been proved in this case. Therefore, it is contended that the notice on one of the partners is not a valid notice of demand. The contention urged before me based on section 24 of the Partnership Act, does not seem to have been urged before his Lordship in the Madras Case reported in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar2. Now section 18 of the Partnership Act provides that subject to the provisions of that Act, a partner is an agent for the business of the firm. Under section 25 it is provided that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The combined effect of sections 25 and 18 is to make every partner an agent of the firm and further make him jointly and severally liable for all the acts of the firm, whereas section 24 deals with the acts of the business relating to the affairs of the firm In my opinion, that section cannot be pressed into service when a provision has been made under the Mysore Sales Tax Act for the recovery of the tax payable by the dealer which includes the firm. Therefore, the two contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner must fall. Consequently, I agree with the conclusions reached by the lower Courts and dismiss this petition, i.e., Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962. The other matter i.e., Criminal Revision Petition 437 of 1962 relates to the period of assessment viz., from 1st October, 1957 to 23rd October, 1959. The facts similar to the facts in Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962. Therefore, for the reasons stated in that petition I dismiss this petition also. A copy of the order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962 shall be kept in this petition. The facts similar to the facts in Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962. Therefore, for the reasons stated in that petition I dismiss this petition also. A copy of the order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 1962 shall be kept in this petition. S.V.S. ------ Petitions dismissed.