1. This is a petition to revise viction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, mallee, in Summary Trial No. 91 of 1952 file. The petitioners are two of the part the firm of G. T. R. Company. The fl(sic) sists of three partners as is clear from deuce of P. W. 2 who says that one Thir-karusu, one of the partners, has left the the prosecution is under Section 15(h) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for wilfully in contravention of Section 13 of the Act. Und of the Act every registered dealer and ev(sic) son licensed under this Act shall keep an tain a true and correct account. The case the accounts that were seized by P. W. 1 (sic) 1950 when he went to the premises and (sic) it are not true accounts maintained by (sic)
2. Objection is taken by Mr. Sundaramprosecution of these two persons on thethat it is the firm that should be prosecunot two of the partners alone. It is out in -- 'Public Prosecutor v. K. Jacob : AIR1951Mad886 (1) (A) which was follme in -- 'In re, Behara Lachanna', AMad 332 (B), where a firm is the assess(sic)the firm that must be prosecuted and individual partners. If a complaint had (sic)against all three partners then that can beas prosecuting the firm. But that has (sic)done in this case. Only two of the partn(sic)prosecuted and therefore the prosecution can(sic)lie in view of the decisions mentioned above. Tconvictions and sentences are set aside and (sic)accused are acquitted. The fines, if paid, be refunded.
3. This does not mean that a fresh pro(sic)tion cannot lie against all the three partnerthe plea of 'autrefois acquit' under Section 403minal P. C., will not avail these petitionerproperly framed complaint is laid againfirm as such including all the three partoOrder acco(sic)