Uma Nath Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset does not press the petition qua petitioners No. 1 and 3. As regards petitioners No. 2 and 4, learned counsel submitted that though they were partners of a dealer firm but only Anil Kumar Jain was the working/managing partner and thus, he was in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the firm. Learned counsel also submitted that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 categorically mentions that the person being in charge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the company so also the company alone would be liable under the Act. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that in respect of allegation for contravention of provisions of clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, the petitioners not being associated with dealership of the commodity in question, cannot be held liable. Learned counsel also referred to various judgments of Honble the Supreme Court to contend that there should be specific averments in the complaint that the person being prosecuted was in charge of an responsible for day-to-day