(1) The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 630 of 2003 arising out of Park Street Police Station Case No. 66 dated 13.3.2003, whereby and whereunder the police officer after conducting investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners herein for commission of offence punishable under Section 11(J) of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2) The aforementioned criminal case was registered on the basis of written information lodged by Divisional Officer, A Division, West Bengal Fire Service whereby it was reported that fire broke out in the office building situated at 62A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Calcutta-700 016 on 13.3.2003. It was intimated that no in-built fire protection system was installed in the aforesaid office building nor any No Objection Certificate from the fire services was obtained. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners as mentioned above.

(3) The case of the petitioners as disclosed in the revisional application appears to be that the petitioners herein are in no way connected with the offence on which charge sheet is submitted by police. It is further stated that no notice in terms of Section 35 of the Act was ever issued and in the absence of such notice a criminal prosecution cannot be initiated against the petitioners.

(4) It is further contended that the Company being Dunlop India Limited has been declared sick by the B.I.F.R. vide order dated 22.6.1998. By further order dated. 5.2.2003, the A.A.I.F.R. had directed the Asset Sales Committee to take appropriate steps for disposal of the property. The petitioners herein, even though, they are office bearers of the Company, are not in any way connected so far as the commission of offence is concerned and as such further continuation of the proceeding against the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of the Court.

(5) Learned Advocate for the petitioners in course of his submission pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned, both the penal Sections under Section 11(J) of the Act and the alleged violation which is provided under Section 11 (C) of the Act falls under Chapter lllA of the Act. The Chapter IIIA came into force with effect from 1.11.1996.

(6) Learned Advocate for the petitioners specifically drew attention of this Court to subsection (1) to Section 11 (C), which is set out below : "11 C. (1) The owner or, where the owner is not traceable, the occupier of a high-risk building or part thereof shall provide fire prevention and fire safety measures in such building or part thereof and the occupier shall maintain the fire prevention and fire safety measures in good repair and in efficient condition at all times in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder: Provided that in the case of such building or part thereof, the construction of which has been completed on any date before the date on which this Chapter comes into force, the occupier and, in the case of such building or part thereof which is under construction on the date immediately before the date on which this Chapter comes into force, the owner shall undertake and carry out such additional fire prevention and fire safety measures as are specified in the notice served on him under section 35."

(7) It is clearly provided that a notice in terms of Section 35 of the Act is required to be served to the occupier indicating such additional fire prevention or fire safety measures that is required to be taken by the occupier. The language of proviso to Section 11 (C) of the Act clearly stipulates that additional fire prevention and fire safety measures shall be taken as specified in the notice served on the occupier under Section 35 of the Act.

(8) Section 35 of the Act is set out below : "35. Inspection of building or premises.(1) The Director or the