1. In my opinion the question submitted to us ought to be answered in the negative. I agree with the views expressed in the cases of The Empress v. Nuddiar Chand Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 6 Calc. 832. and with that expressed in the case of In the matter of Nomullu Akond (1882) 11 C. L. R. 416. I think it would be difficult to hold, having regard to the language of the section, especially to the words “such fine shall be recoverable from such manufacturer or vendor, notwithstanding that such a breach may have been owing to the default or carelessness of the servant or other persons employed by him,” that the servant or the person employed can be properly held liable.
2. With respect to the cases which take an opposite view, and with all respect to the opinions expressed in the case of Empress v. Baney Madhub Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 8 Calc. 207., which followed that decided by Sir Richard Couch C.J., and Glover J., in the case of Ishur Chunder Shaha (1873) 19 W. R. Cr. 34., it is sufficient to point out that the language of the. Act under which the latter of these decisions was given is clearly distinguishable from the language of the present Act, and in the important particular that the words, to which I have referred, are not to be found in the earlier Act.
3. I am of the same opinion.
4. I am of the same opinion.
5. I am of the same opinion.
6. I am of the same opinion.