Judgment S.Ali Ahmad, J. 1. These two applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order which is as follows: 2. There are seven petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 336 of 1981 (R) whereas there is only one petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 467 of 1981 (R). A complaint for violation of Rule 12(e) and Rule 29 of the Bihar Weights and Measures, (Enforcement) Rules was filed by the Inspector of weights and measurement, Jamshedpur before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhalbhum. The Tisco (a company registered under the Companies Act) was also described as one of the accused along with these petitioners. On the basis of the complaint which is Annexure 6, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur by his order dated 6-2-1981 Annexure 7) took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against all the persons described as accused in the petition of complaint. Thereafter, three applications were filed in this Court two on behalf of the present petitioners and one on behalf of the Tisco and it was urged by Mr. Sanyal that no offence whatsoever was made out against the accused persons and, as such the order taking cognizance should be quashed. When I observed after hearing the argument at some length that the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint disclosed violation of the two rules mentioned therein, Mr. Sanyal sought permission to withdraw the application filed on behalf of the Tisco. I allowed that prayer yesterday. In the circumstances, the only argument pressed by Mr. Sanyal in support of these two applications is that no case has been made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the requirement mentioned in Sec. 42 of the Bihar Weights and Measures Enforcement Act has not been mentioned in the petition of complaint. According to Mr. Sanyal these petitioners have only been mentioned in column No. 2 of the petition of complaint (where the names of the accused have to be mentioned). He says that if a person, other than a company, has to be punished then it has to be alleged that he was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mr. He says that if a person, other than a company, has to be punished then it has to be alleged that he was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mr. Sanyal further says that no where in the petition of complaint it has been said that any one of these petitioners was incharge of the weighment bridges and of keeping of standard weight as provided in the rules framed under the Act. 3. Mr. S.K. Chattopadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that against the names of these petitioners the designations they hold in the company have also been mentioned and that will show that they are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. He further submitted that the inspection note which is part of the petition of complaint also mentioned that petitioner Sri A.K. Vishwakarma was reported to be over all incharge of the weighment machines which were under the general supervision of petitioner Shri M.M. Sinha. He, therefore contended that at least these two persons were incharge of the weighment machines and in any view of the matter the requirement mentioned in Sec. 42 of the Act has been mentioned against these two persons. 4. I have carefully perused the petition of complaint and 1 find that besides mentioning the names of the petitioners in column No. 2 of the petition of complaint along with their designations, nothing has been said as to how they are incharge of the weighment bridge section or the department. The Inspection note of course mentions that "Shri A.K. Vishwakarma, Supd. Works General Services Tisco was reported over all incharge of weighment machine under general Superintendent of Shri M.M. Sinha. It appears from what I have quoted above that Shri Vishwakarma was over all incharge of the weighment machine which was under general superintendence of Shri M.M. Sinha. 5. The Inspection note of course mentions that "Shri A.K. Vishwakarma, Supd. Works General Services Tisco was reported over all incharge of weighment machine under general Superintendent of Shri M.M. Sinha. It appears from what I have quoted above that Shri Vishwakarma was over all incharge of the weighment machine which was under general superintendence of Shri M.M. Sinha. 5. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 42 of the Act reads as follows: Offence by the companies (1)--If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was incharge 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. A perusal of this section will show that the person has to be incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. The words "incharge of" do not mean to be "incharge remotely". It means that the person should be directly incharge. So far as Shri M.M. Sinha is concerned he only had a general superintendence, he therefore, cannot be said to be directly incharge but so far as petitioner Shri A.K. Vishwakarma is concerned he must be held to be directly incharge of the weighment machine. Mr. Sanyal laid stress that he has been described over all incharge and he is not a person directly incharge of the machine. I do not agree. The machines in question are quite big and complicated. That has to be looked after by a number of persons and one person has to be over all incharge of that machines. That means his charge is direct and he is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business so far as that machine is concerned. 6 So far the other petitioners are concerned. I do not find anything against them mentioned in the application. But before I dispose of this application, I would like to mention that learned Counsel for the State very strenuously relied on the decision in the case of Drugs Inspector Palace Road Bangalore V/s. Dr. B.K. Krishnaiah and Ors. -- . 6 So far the other petitioners are concerned. I do not find anything against them mentioned in the application. But before I dispose of this application, I would like to mention that learned Counsel for the State very strenuously relied on the decision in the case of Drugs Inspector Palace Road Bangalore V/s. Dr. B.K. Krishnaiah and Ors. -- . In that case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were considering the scope of Rule 65(7) of the Drugs Rules 1945 which is similar to Sec. 42 of the Act. In that case cognizance had been taken against the petitions for violation of certain provisions of the Act. One of the partners died and the High Court quashed the entire proceeding on the ground that the other persons were not directly incharge of the business. The Supreme Court held that it was not proper and the High Court should not have done that. This case, in my opinion does not help the State, In that case the partnership deed which formed part of the petition of complaint showed that all the partners individually were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. This was taken note of by the learned Judges and in that background it was observed that it was not proper for the High Court to have quashed the entire proceeding. 7. It is well settled that processes under Sec.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be issued only if there are sufficient grounds from the discussions made above it is patent that there was no sufficient ground for issuing processes against Shri Russi Homi Mody, Shri D.P. Kharia, Shri Dr. J.J. Irani, Shri M.M. Sinha, Shri Y.S. Kapadia and Shri S.K. Roy (Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6) respectively of Criminal Misc case No. 336 of 1981) and the sole petitioner Shri A.C. Mukerjee of Criminal Misc. case No. 467 of 1981. The order, therefore, issuing processes against these petitioners is set aside. The application of Shri A.K. Vishwakarma petitioner No. (sic) of Criminal Misc. No. 336 of 1981 is dismissed.