M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) AS stated above it is clear that there are no allegations made in the complaint against petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 except that petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are described as accused with their designation in the Company. It is well laid down by the series of decisions that if in the complaint or the papers accompanying the same no offence is disclosed then the process issued against the accused is required to be quashed. ( 2 ) SECTION 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 provides as under:25 (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company the company as well as every 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 guilt) of the offence 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 offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the Commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (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 that the combination of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director manager managing agent or any other officer of the company such director manager managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. EXPLANATION: For the purpose of this Section (a) company means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and (b) director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. In this case there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 were in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence. In this case there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 were in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence. Further taking into consideration sub-section (2) of Section 25 it is also clear that there are no allegations in the complaint that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director manager managing agent or any other officer of the company. However Section 2 (g) of the Act provides that in a factory where the person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act 1948 he would be the principal employer. Therefore the learned advocate for the petitioners has stated that at this stage he is not pressing that the process issued against the petitioner No. 6 who is described as Factory Manager should be quashed. ( 3 ) IT is really a very sordid affair that even though the complaint was filed under the guidance and instructions of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Additional Labour Commissioner yet in the complaint no specific allegations made against the particular persons stating that who M as responsible for the commission of an offence. In the complaint nothing is stated in what manner the accused had committed an offence and which accused is responsible for it. No doubt under the Criminal Procedure Code no form for filing complaint is prescribed. It can even be an oral one. But at the same time it should at least disclose that the accused have committed or omitted to do a particular act which is an offence and it must disclose the necessary facts which prima-facie constitute an offence under particular Act. It is expected that in the complaint concisely all ingredients of an offence and the responsibility of the concerned officers are required to be mentioned. It is very painful to note that both highest public functionaries who are expected to enforce the welfare legislation had seen that a perfunctory complaint was filed. Even though in the complaint it is stated that under the guidance or supervision of the higher officers the complaint was drafted and filed yet the complaint does not disclose any allegations against the petitioners Nos. Even though in the complaint it is stated that under the guidance or supervision of the higher officers the complaint was drafted and filed yet the complaint does not disclose any allegations against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 and 7. Therefore the process issued against petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 is required to be quashed and the process issued against petitioners Nos. 1 and 6 only is maintained. ( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx Rule made absolute to the extent indicates. .