D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners Swapan Ganguly and Ram Chandra Prasad have preferred the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure jointly for quashing the entire criminal prosecution of Complaint Case No. C-III-306 of 1990 including the order impugned dated March 19, 2004 whereby cognizance of the offence was taken. The case is pending in the Court of Shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

2. The petitioners had earlier moved before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court for quashing the order of cognizance taken earlier in the same case and this Court by order dated March 15, 1999 set aside the cognizance order dated July 9, 1990 in Cr. Misc. No. 736 of 1991(R) and remit the matter for passing fresh order in accordance with law as Annexure 1.

3. The brief fact, of the case, is that the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) instituted a Complaint Case No. C- III-306 of 1990 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against the petitioners under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation regarding breach of several rules under the said Act. On the basis of such complaint, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence under Section 24-A of the Act. Again after remand, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, pursuant to the direction made in Cr.Misc. No. 736 of 1991(R) took cognizance afresh by the order impugned dated March 19, 2004 in the present case and it is submitted that such order suffers from material illegality and is unsustainable in law.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was well settled that the persons, who were posted in places other than the establishment in question where any offence was alleged could not be possibly to be in charge of or responsible for day-to-day affairs of that establishment. It has been admitted in the complaint petition itself that while petitioner No. 1 herein was stationed at Patna and the petitioner No. 2 herein was stationed at the district office at 12, Purulia Road, Ranchi the alleged violation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules had taken place at a Depot of the Food Corporation of India at Tatisilwai, Ranchi as is apparent from paragraph 4(I)(i)of the complaint petition.

5. The Food Corporation of India is a Central Government Undertaking and the duties and responsibilities have been specifically assigned to the persons holding different posts. As such, petitioner No. 1 herein, who was Regional Manager, stationed at Patna and even the petitioner No. 2 herein stationed during the relevant time at the District Office, 12, Purulia Road, Ranchi cannot be said to be in charge of or responsible for day to day affairs of a Depot of Food Corporation of India at Tatisilwai, Ranchi. The Depot Incharge alone can be said to be responsible. But in the present case the informant/Labour Enforcement Officer intentionally picked out these two petitioners for being prosecuted which is against the principles envisaged in the case law reported in 2004 LAB I.C. 331. A Bench of this Court in Aditya Puri v. Union of India observed as under:

A plain reading of Sub-clause (1) of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that the person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that as per Section 25(2) of the Act, the petitioner can be fastened with the liability. On a bare perusal of this provision it is apparent that the liability is on a person, who was in charge of the office when the offence was detected. To fasten the others who were not at that time in charge of the office, it should be shown that it was with their consent, or connivance, or that the commission of the offence