JUDGMENT M. P. Verma, J.- These seven petitioners have filed this petition under the provisions of Section 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated the 30th June, 1968 taking cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of report received from the Assistant District Supply Officer (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as "A.D.S.O."), Dhanbad. 2. The short facts are these. The A.D.S.O. examined the Stock Register of the firm of the petitioners for the period 1st April, 1966 to 31st March, 1967, and found one main irregularity, namely the accused's firm had stored rice in excess of 1000 quintals each day continuously from the 5th January, 1967 to 23rd January, 1967. So, according to the complainant A.D.S.D., the accused persons had violated condition no. 7 (v) of the licence granted under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966. On the basis of this report, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance and started a criminal proceeding against these petitioners. 3. Mr. Hari Lal Agarwal, appearing for the petitioners, has raised an objection that this order of taking cognizance against the petitioners is bad in law and cannot be sustained. His main argument is that in the complaint petition the names of the accused persons have been given and below the same it is written: "All partners of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Shankerlal, Wholesale Foodgrain Dealer of Jharia". So the action has apparently been taken against the partners of this firm. The penal section under the Essential Commodities Act is Section 10(1) which reads as follows:- "10(1) If the person contravening an order made under Section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention." In the explanation the expression "company" means "any body corporate" and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and the expression "director" in relation to a firm means "a partner in the firm". In view of the clear language of this sub-section of Section 10, the partners of the firm cannot be proceeded against, unless they are shown to be in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. The evidence so far available does not disclose as to which of these persons were present at the time of inspection who were residents of Dhanbad and who were residing elsewhere. It is also not indicated that any of these partners was in charge of running the firm or conducting its business and was in charge of, or responsible to, the firm. A number of decisions have been given on this point, and I may refer to the case of (1) D. K. Jain V. The State (A.I.R. 1965 Allababad 525). That was a case under the provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act where also in Section 17 the same language has been used as in Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case of (2) R. P. Kapur V. The State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866) it was observed that, where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court would be justified, under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the cognizance, otherwise it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. There are at least three other cases decided by this Court, namely, (3) Anandi Lal Goenka V. Krishna Kumar Birla (Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1062 and 1064 of 1967 decided by R. J. Bahadur, J. on the 25th April, 1968), (4) Rajendra Kumar Poddar V. The State (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 902 of 1968, decided by G. N. Prasad, J. on the 13th November, 1968) and (5) Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 431 and 483 of 1969 (Jiwachh Prasad Saraf & others V. The State of Bihar, decided by me on the 27th August, 1969). All these decisions are unanimous on the point that by merely giving the names of the partners of the firm, a criminal proceeding for the violation of the provision of the Essential Commodities Act or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot proceed. All these decisions are unanimous on the point that by merely giving the names of the partners of the firm, a criminal proceeding for the violation of the provision of the Essential Commodities Act or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot proceed. The complainant must show that a certain partner was the managing partner or manager or entrusted with the business of the firm and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business. If that description is missing from the complaint, then all the partners cannot be proceeded against for any such violation of the Rules. In this view of the matter, this petition must be allowed and the impugned order must be quashed. 4. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Application allowed.