PATIL, J. ( 1 ) ON the complaint made by the labour Officer, Raichur Sub Division, raichur, alleging contravention of Rules 4 (a), 4 (b) and 4 (c) of the Payment of bonus Rules, 1975, and consequent to the commission of offence punishable under S. 28 of the Payment of Bonus act, 1965, the JMFC. , Raichur, having issued process against the petitioners, the petitioners appearing before the magistrate, made an application on 17-2-1981 to dismiss to dismiss the complaint on the ground the firm had not been made a party. The Magistrate having dismissed that application, they approached the Sessions Judge in cr. R. P. No. 30/81 and the Sessions judge having dismissed the revision by his order dated 14-9-1984, they have approached this Court invoking the inherent powers under S. 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) MR. Raikote, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, argued that the firm being the employer under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, not only the prosecution against the partners alone was not maintainable, but on such complaints, in the form in which it has been made to the Magistrate, the Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence and the proceedings as initiated being wholly illegal are bad in law ana deserved to be quashed. ( 3 ) THERE is no denial of the fact that respondent-1, the Labour Officer, who was duly autnorised as provided under S. 30 of. the Payment of Bonus act had made the said complaint alleging contravention of the particular tuies regarding the maintenance of certain registers requited under the law. It would appear, as alleged in the complaint, he also visited the firm M/s. Manohai Industries situated in Hyderabad road, Raichur, on a particular day and petitioner-1, who was present in the office, was unable to produce the registeres whan called upon to do so. The firm, w. iich is the employer, had committed the oifence. The firm had not been arrayed as an accused, but the fact that the firm has not been arrayed as an aecused by itself is not sufficient to hold that no such prosecution could be brought against the partners of the firm, without impleading the firm as an accused. The firm, w. iich is the employer, had committed the oifence. The firm had not been arrayed as an accused, but the fact that the firm has not been arrayed as an aecused by itself is not sufficient to hold that no such prosecution could be brought against the partners of the firm, without impleading the firm as an accused. That position of law is now well settled by the decision in the case of Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M. P. (AIR 7984 S. C 1824 ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, considering similar provisions in S. 10 of the Essential commodities Act have observed that there is no statutory compulsion that the person incharge or an officer in charge of the company cannot be prosecuted unless he be ranged alongside the company itself; the company alone may be prosecuted; the person incharge only may be prosecuted; or one or all may be prosecuted. Therefore, the Magistrate, it appears, was justified in dismissing the application ; but if that was all that naturally the petition had to be dismissed. Unfortunately, herein the case, not only the firm has not been prosecuted, but the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose that any of the petitioners arrayed as accused in the complaint was incharge of or was responsible to the firm in the conduct of the business of the firm. All that has been stated in the complaint is that petitioner-1 Sri shrenikraj was piesent when the Inspector visited the office of the firm and called upon to produce the registers required to be maintained. That has a very important bearing on the propriety of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on that complaint; because s. 29 of the Act provides that if a person committing an offence under the Act is a company (which as explained under the section also means any body-corporate and includes a firm or other association or individuals), every person who, at the time of 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 with and punished accordingly. It, therefore, follows that merely arraying the partners of the firm is not sufficient. It, therefore, follows that merely arraying the partners of the firm is not sufficient. The complaint must also state that one or the other of the partners of the firm arrayed as accused in the complaint was incharge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time the offence was committed. Similar question arose for decision in the case of R. D. Shukla v. State of Bihar (1973 crl. L J. 1328) before their Lordships of the High Court of Patna. There, as in the case on hand, where partners were only named in the complaint without arraying them as party or making any specific allegation that any of the partners so named was entrusted with the business of the firm and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, it was held the complaint must show that certain partner or the Managing partner or Manager was entrusted with the business of the firm and was responsible to the conduct of the business of the firm and if that description is missing, then all the partners cannot be proceeded against for violation of any rules. The Magistrate, in the absence of these materials allegations necessary, was not justified in taking congnizance of the offence against the petitioners, in as much as the complaint does not disclose any of the accused-petitioners was responsible for the contravention of the rules, constituting an offence punishable under the Act. Therefore, taking of the cognizance against the petitioners by the Magistrate on such bald allegations, without there being any allegation that they being entrusted with the business of the firm were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business, being bad in law, the proceeding are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. In the result and for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The process issued against the petitioners are set aside and the proceedings are quashed. --- *** --- .