H. C. Puri and Co. v. R. Crim. App. 33-M-69, 17/3/69, Bramble J.

H. C. Puri and Co. v. R. Crim. App. 33-M-69, 17/3/69, Bramble J.

An information was laid against H. C. Puri & Co. for failing to pay contribution to the Fund within the prescribed period contrary to section 38 (1) (d) of the National Provident Fund Act. A conviction was recorded and a fine of Shs. 200/- or two months’ imprisonment imposed. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence.

            Held: “The point which immediately arises is the question of charging an unincorporated body with a criminal offence. The question was considered at length in a Kenya case, NTEREKEIYA BUS SERVICE vs. REPUBLIC [1966] E.A.L.R. page 333. In that case the appellant was charged with permitting a person to use a motor vehicle in and un roadworthy condition. Someone appeared, a conviction was recorded and the fine was paid. The question was whether on the facts a conviction of something called The Nterekeiya Bus Service could stand. It was held that (1) it was perfectly plain that a firm or body incorporate could not be charged, convicted and punished solely in the name adopted by the firm or society; (ii) the conviction was a nullity. While a corporate body and a firm or body un-incorporate are basically associations of persons to carry out a particular purpose incorporation gives the former an individuality in law and its members do not have any personal responsibility for the acts of a company. In the case of a firm or body incorporate from the point of view of the criminal law, the principle of common intent will apply and each member will be responsible for the acts of the others done in furtherance of the common purpose as though they were his own acts. The firm does not possess an individuality of its own recognised by the criminal law and its members may all be charged in their own names. The law in this country as to persons chargeable in the criminal courts is the same as in Kenya and following the decision quoted above; I hold that the proceedings in this case were a nullity.” Appeal allowed.