JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of this appeal.

2. On June 28,1980 the appellants formed a partnership firm for the purpose of running a rice mill in the name and style of M/s Patina Lal Prem Nath Rice Mills at Shahpur. They have been convicted by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court, Karnal by judgment dated March 110, 1986 for contravention of the provisions of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. They were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has confirmed that conviction and sentence.

They now appeal against conviction.

3. The facts which gave rise to the. charges, in so far as material, were these: In 1984, the firm purchased 5373 quintals 69 kgs. and 400 gms of common paddy from the market. At the rate of conversion of paddy into rice an average 3582.49 quintals of rice should have been obtained from that much quantity of paddy. As per levy rules the firm ought to have supplied 3224.21 quintals of rice to the Government but the firm failed to supply it. Instead it supplied only 1510 quintals of rice. There was thus a short supply of 1714.17 quintals of levy rice to the Government. On another occasion the firm purchased 2353.79 quintals of superfine paddy out of which 1566.62 quintals of rice could be obtained. From that, the firm gave the Government 933.89 quintals of rice as against 1174.96 quintals. Here again there was a short supply of 241.07 quintals of superfine levy rice.

4. The short supply of levy rice is a contravention of the . Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1979 and punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. All the partners of the firm were charge-sheeted and put to trial for the said offence. They were also convicted and sentenced as earlier stated.

5. Counsel for the appellants urged that there is no, evidence adduced by the prosecution that the appellants were in charge of the business of the firm when the offence was committed and in the absence of any -such evidence the conviction could not be sustained. Counsel rested his submission on the text of section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. This section provides:

"10. Offences by companies.- (1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 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 be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

Explanation - For the purposes of this section,-

(a) "Company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and

(b) "director" - in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.

6. From explanation to section 10 it will be seen that the company includes a firm and other association of persons. Section 10 provides that the person shall be deemed to be guilty, of contravention of an order made under section 3 if he was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. What is