M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). This is a States appeal for enhancement of sentence passed against the respondents in a case in which they were charged in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Palanpur for contravening the provisions of Rule 25 (2) of the Minimum Wages Rules 1961 (the Rules) punishable under sec. 22a of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (the Act ). ( 2 ) BUT Miss Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-accused submits that in the instant case so far as accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned they were prosecuted along with the company that is- the firm of which they were the partners by virtue of the fact that they were the partners of the said company which is alleged to have committed the offence. Miss Shah drew my attention to sec. 22-C which deals with the offences by the companies Sub-sec. (1) provides that if the person committing any offence under this Act is a company every person who at the time the offence 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 offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The proviso is not relevant for our purpose. Sub-sec. (2) provides:notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director manager secretary or other officer of the company such director manager. secretary or other officer of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the explanation it is stated that company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. It is thus clear that a person merely by virtue of his being a partner in a firm which committs an offence cannot be prosecuted and convicted unless the case falls within the provisions contained either in sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of sec. 22c of the Act. It is thus clear that a person merely by virtue of his being a partner in a firm which committs an offence cannot be prosecuted and convicted unless the case falls within the provisions contained either in sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of sec. 22c of the Act. Under sub-sec. (1) it has to be shown that the person was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. There is no such case set out in the complaint or any where else while prosecuting accused Nos. 2 to 5 in the instant case. Under sub-sec. (2) the prosecution in order to succeed has to inter alia show that the person is a director that is-a partner of the accused-firm and that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of such a person. That is also not the case of the prosecution in the proceedings from which this appeal arises. Simply because accused Nos. 2 to 5 happen to be the partners of accused No. 1 firm they cannot be prosecuted and held guilty for the offence committed by the firm. Unless therefore their case is brought within the purview either of sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of sec. 22c no prosecution can be launched against them. The order of conviction and sentence therefore in the instant case passed against accused Nos. 2 to 5 is not sustainable and the learned Magistrate therefore erred in passing such an order which in law he cannot pass. ( 3 ) IT is true as pointed out by Mr. Chhaya that the accused here have been convicted on their plea of guilty. But this would not make any difference so far as the legality of the order of conviction and sentence is concerned because if no prosecution can lie against the accused persons then any plea of guilty to such a charge which cannot be levelled against them and which in fact has not been levelled against them would not entitle the court to pass an order of conviction accepting such plea of guilty. The order passed therefore is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustaineed so far as accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned. ( 4 ) APPEAL partly allowed. The order of sentence of fine of Rs. The order passed therefore is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustaineed so far as accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned. ( 4 ) APPEAL partly allowed. The order of sentence of fine of Rs. 25/- against accused No. 1 firm is substituted by sentence of fine of Rs. 100. 00. The order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 2 to 5 that is-partners of accused No. 1 firm is set aside and the proceedings against them are quashed. Fine if paid by the said accused to be refunded. Appeal partly allowed. .