JUDGMENT
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute upon the grounds on which it was issued.
2. The law (Act VIII of 1899) lays down in Section 11: “No quantity of petroleum exceeding 500 gallons shall be kept by any one person, or on the same premises, or shall be transported, except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of a license granted under this Act.”
3. Now, it is found that a person, named Sheo Bhagwan, who was an agent of the petitioner and also apparently agent of several other persons in the sale of petroleum, imported or rattier transported (for, we do not know how this petroleum was imported into this country) more than 150 tins at a time, and we are told that 150 tins is equal to the maximum allowed, viz., 500 gallons. If, therefore, Sheo Bhagwan transported more than 150 tins, he is guilty of transporting petroleum in contravention of the Act. But we are unable to see that the principal, Ganpat Rai, is responsible for this, unless there is a finding that he knew that more than 150 tins were being transported at one time on his license and allowed this to take place with such knowledge. Now, there is no finding to that effect.
4. The agent, Sheo Bhagwan, seems to have been allowed to give evidence and, of course, being himself the guilty person, he would naturally try to shift the balance on to his principal. He says that he did transport more, than 150 tins for his principal at one time and despatched them in parcels of 150 gallons to the dealers. Still we are unable to say, there being no finding to that effect, that the petitioner was in any way responsible for this illegal proceeding.
5. The second point depends upon the first and has already been decided by us, namely, that the petitioner cannot be held criminally liable for any illegal act of the said agent, There is no provision, as far as we can see, in this Act, as there is in the Excise Act and in the Motor Car Act, which makes the principal responsible for the acts of his agents or servants and nothing can be read into the law which is not to be found in the law.
6. As regards the third ground, we have already referred to that. It relates to the contention of the petitioner that Sheo Bhagwan was agent for other firms as well as for the petitioner and that it is impossible for the petitioner to know how much petroleum was imported for his use and how much for that of the others. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the Crown that as Ganpat Rai took commission or profit of one pice per tin on every tin sold, he must have been aware of how many tins were in the possession of his agent at one time. This does not seem to us to be at all a necessary conclusion. A stock of 150 tins may be sold out gradually and be replenished from time to time and it is impossible for the absent principal to know whether at one time his agent had 150 tins on his behalf or on behalf of the other firms. Even though the Act provides a personal penalty, we think the only person that can be punished is the one who keeps petroleum or carries it about or puts more than 150 tins at one place.
7. For these reasons, the Rule must be made absolute and the conviction and sentence set aside. The fines, if paid, must be refunded.