The complaint must contain specific facts indicating the accused's responsibility for the firm's affairs, and distinguish between vicarious and direct liability under the Essential Commodities Act.

S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. The two significant questions which fall for determination in this reference to the Full Bench may be precisely formulated in the following terms:

(i) Whether Sec.10 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act inflexibly requires the incorporation of the words "was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm"-in all complaints a partner of the firm for offences in contravention of the said Act ?

(ii) Whether Sec.10 (2) of the Act aforesaid necessarily mandates the incorporation of the allegation that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect on the part of the partner of the firm in the complaint itself ?

2. The facts may be noticed with the stricktest brevity in so far as they are relevant to the two pristinely legal questions aforesaid. The four petitioners are admittedly partners of the firm named and styled as M/s. Nalanda Trading Stores, Bakhtiarpur carrying on the business of a cement selling agency thereat. On the basis of a complaint (Annexure-1) made by Shri Basistha Narayan Singh, General Secretary of the District Janta Party alleging serious irregularities against the petitioners and their firm an inquiry was apparently made and a report dated 28th of September, 1978 of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Barh, (Annexure-2) was rendered. Pursuant thereto, Shri Devendra Kumar, Supply Inspector, Bakhtiarpur, presented a complaint (Annexure-3) in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh. Therein it was expressly averred that the petitioners are the partners of M/s. Nalanda Trading Stores and they are interested in the loss and profit of the business of the cement selling agency. In terms the allegation that the aforesaid business is under the direct control and supervision of the petitioners was made. Numerous allegations coming within the ambit of the offences Under Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were enumerated in paragraphs 2 to 9 of complaint and a prayer was made that cognizance Under Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Act may be taken against all the four petitioners.

3. On the 20th of March, 1979 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, by his order of even date took cognizance against the petitioners and transferred it to the file of Shri K. P. Verma, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, for trial.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance the present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred seeking the quashing of the proceeding at the very threshold. The primal grounds urged herein are that in the petition of complaint itself it has not been expressly pleaded that the petitioners or any of them was in charge of or was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. Further stand is that there is no allegation in the complaint that the alleged contravention of the Essential Commodities Act has been committed with the consent, connivance or negligence on the part of the petitioners or any of them so as to attract the application of Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act.

5. This criminal miscellaneous petition originally came up before a learned Single Judge, who after hearing, apparently found the issues involved to be of some significance and, therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench. Before the Division Bench reliance was placed on a series of judgments of this Court taking the view that unless specific allegations are made in the petition of complaint itself in terms pari meteria whit the language of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec.10 of the Act, the proceeding would virtually stand vitiated. Noticing some conflict of precedents and raising some doubt about the correctness of the earlier view the matter was referred to a Full Bench on 27th of March, 1985 and that is how it is before us.

6. It will appear that subsequent to the date of the reference the gordian knot of the somew