CRR No.2676 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Rev. No. 2676 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 12 , 2011 Food Corporation of India through Area Manager, Amritsar.......................................................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others.......................................................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 None for respondent Nos. 4 to 5. <> Sabina, J. Respondents No. 2 to 5 faced trial for an offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 403 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') in FIR No. 113 dated 25.9.1996 registered at Police Station Bhikiwind under Sections 406, 407,418 and 420 IPC . The trial Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2006 convicted the respondents for an offence under Section 403 IPC and vide the order of even date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and fine of ` 1000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No. 2 to 5 preferred an appeal. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh after framing the charge against the accused in the capacity of partners of the firm and against the firm. Hence, the present petition by the complainant-Food CRR No.2676 of 2010 2 Corporation of India (for short `F.C.I.'). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate Court had erred in remanding the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision after framing the charge against the accused as partners of the firm and against the firm because the partnership firm is not a legal entity and the partners had acted in their individual capacity while performing the business of the firm. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the learned trial Court was required to frame the charge against the partnership firm and the accused as members of the firm. An agreement had been executed between F.C.I and M/s Amrit Rice and General Mills, Bhikhiwind (for short `Rice Mill). The accused were partners of the said firm and were not acting in their individual capacity while conducting the business for the firm. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. As per Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually “partners” and collectively a “firm” and the name under which their business is carried on is called the “firm name”. Partnership firm is not a legal entity. Partners act individually to share the profits of the business carried on by all or any one CRR No.2676 of 2010 3 of them acting for all. In these circumstances, the appellate Court erred in holding that the trial Court was required to re-frame the charge against the firm and the partners of the firm. Although an agreement for milling paddy was entered between F.C.I. and Rice Mill but the partners of the Rice Mill could have been individually sued for misappropriation of paddy. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2009 passed by the appellate Court is set aside . Consequently, the appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits. ( Sabina ) Judge August 12, 2011 arya