SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) SRI H. V. Ramesh, learned H. C. G. P. takes notice for the respondents. ( 2 ) THESE two petitions are considered together for passing acommon order as the facts involved are similar and parties are same. ( 3 ) THE second respondent inspected M/s. Anand Sweets andsavories at Commercial Street and Jayanager, Bangalore. The account books were not produced when demanded, at the time of inspection by the petitioner. Accordingly the prosecution is launched against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 29 (2) (m) of the K. S. T. Act 1957. Petitioner is the complainant described as Accounts Manager of Anand Sweets. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he is only an employeeof M/s. Anand Sweets and not liable for prosecution under Section 26 of the Act in any manner. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act places an obligation on the dealer or any other person who is liable to be registered as a dealer to maintain true and correct accounts of the business. ( 5 ) THE provisions of Section 29 of the Act reads thus:"29. Offences and Penalties - (1) Any person who, - (a) (xxx) fails to submit a return required by the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder, or (b) xxxxx (bb) dishonestly objects to or fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued on to him under sub-section (1) of Section 14; or (c) xxx (d) fails to pay within the time allowed any tax assessed on him or any penalty levied on him under this Act; (or) (e) fails to keep true and complete accounts; (f) being a dealer or a miller, whether he is a dealer or not, fails to comply with a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 28: (g) fails to submit a statements as required by sub-section (1) of Section 12-B; (h) xxx shall on conviction by a Magistrate, not below the rank of a second Class Magistrate, (be liable to a fine which shall not be less than (five hundred rupees) but which may extend to five thousand rupees ). ( 6 ) THE word "any person" in Section 29 is to be understood inthe context of the provisions contained in Sections 26 and 28 of the act vis-a-vis. ( 6 ) THE word "any person" in Section 29 is to be understood inthe context of the provisions contained in Sections 26 and 28 of the act vis-a-vis. The provisions of sub-section (a) to (f) of Section and sub-section (a) to (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 29. The above said provision states that any person who fails to keep true and complete account is liable for S. l. for a period of not less than six months and may extend to one year with fine. The provisions of section 29 (2) (m) declares that any one willfully acts in contravention of any of the provisions is liable for conviction of S. i. , for a period up to 12 months and with prescribed fine. ( 7 ) THERE is an obligation on the part of the dealer or person whois supposed to be registered as a dealer to maintain the accounts under Section 26 of the Act. It is obligatory on the dealer to produce the accounts at the time of inspection under Section 28 of the Act. Thereby there is no provision under the KST Act which fasten liability on the employees to be accountable for maintenance and production of accounts at the time of inspection and even if there is a failure on the part of the employee it is the dealer who is liable for prosecution. The provisions of Sections 26 and 28 does not postulate any legal obligation on the employee. Therefore, the petitioner as an employee does not incur any penal liability for the breach. Accordingly, the Petitions are allowed and the proceedings are quashed. --- *** ---