IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance is taken of the offence.

JUDGMENT

L.P.N. Sahadeo, J. - This application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal (proceeding in M.W. Case No. 73 of 1982 and the order taking cognizance dated 24.6.1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

2. It appears that the Labour Inspector, had inspected the company of the petitioner, known as M/s. U.S. Dugal and Company and found that certain registers were not maintained in accordance with the requirements of Minimum Wages Act and the Rules, framed thereunder. He had given a list of registers, viz., Casual Labour Register, Destruction and Loss Register, Excess Payment Register Mustor Roll Register etc. Thereafter he sent reminders for those registers to the Project Manager several times and every time, he received letters for extension of time and ultimately, when those registers were not produced, he filed this case for the alleged violation of sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the Act, and thereafter a complaint was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken and the petitioners were summoned.

3. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are shown as the Directors of M/s. U.S. Dugal and Company and there is no specific allegation that they were responsible for the conduct of the business and as such the prosecution of the petitioners is a clear misuse of the powers of the Court. It was further pointed out that in substance, the Labour Inspector had entered into several correspondences with the Project Manager, which shows that the Project Manager was responsible for the affairs of the company and as such he should have been prosecuted, if any, violation was made and not the Directors, who were not even present, nor were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company.

4. Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned Counsel for the opposite-party, relied on the Full Bench ruling, reported in Madan Mohan Upadhayay and others v. The State of Bihar1 and submitted that if the offence is committed by a firm or a company, all persons, whether director, manager, or partner etc. are liable for the offence committed and it is not necessary that the Director, Manager or partner should be specifically named that any offence was committed with their connivance or consent and in this view of the matter, the petitioners who are the directors of the company are also liable for prosecution. In the complaint petition the petitioners have been described as the Managing Directors and Director and the Company has also been made an accused along with the Managing Director and Directors. Admittedly, the complainant had entered into correspondences with the Supervisor and the Project Manager of the Company for production of the relevant registers but that was not done nor his directions were complied with. It also appears that he also informed the Directors about the violation of the relevant provisions but in spite of that, nothing was done by any of the petitioners. The allegation, therefore was that all the petitioners, one way or the other, were responsible and the violation so committed was brought to their notice, but still no action was taken. In the Full Banch ruling, it has been specifically held that if the offence is committed by the company or the firm its Director, Manager or the Partner become vicariously liable for the offence and continue to be so liable, unless and until, they prove to the contrary and naming of the Director, Manager or the Partner in the complaint specifically, is not necessary.

5. In another Full Bench ruling reported in Sri Badri Prasad Gupta V. The State of Bihar2, which was a case under the Shops and Establishment Act, section 35 of that Act was found to be pari materia to section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. In this case also it was held that it is not required to plead in the complaint that Director, Partner, Manager or the Secretary, either exercise ultimate control over the affairs of the company or t