ORDER The Rule is directed against an order passed by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in G.R. Case No. 1366 of 1981 framing charge against the present petitioners who are the partners of firm, Om Trading Corporation of 12 Amratala Street, Calcutta, for an offence under s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. It appears that a Sub Inspector of the Enforcement Branch of Police made a report under s.11 of the said Act alleging that the said firm was a dealer in ground nut seed and it was detected on the 8th June 1981 that the petitioners did not observe certain condition of the licence issued under the West Bengal Essential Commodities Order of 1978 which constitute an offence punishable under s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate was liable to be quashed on two grounds : in the first place, the petitioners who were partners could not be prosecuted in the absence of the firm and, secondly, the report under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act did not disclose any detail to show that any of the petitioners were in charge of the business of the firm. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners bas urged that s. 10 of the Essential Commodities Act no doubt makes the partner of firm vicariously liable for offence committed by the firm but since an agent cannot be prosecuted without the principal the prosecution of the petitioners in the instant case is illegal in support of this contention he has referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Kailash Prasad Musaddi v. The State 1984(1) CHN 26 . In that case the offence was committed by a firm but only a partner and the Manager were charged and in such situation their lordships held that the licence that is, the firm Itself, must have to be prosecuted along with any other person who may be vicariously liable. As this was not done, the entire proceeding was quashed. This can no longer be held to be good law in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sheoraian Agarwal & any v. State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1824 . As this was not done, the entire proceeding was quashed. This can no longer be held to be good law in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sheoraian Agarwal & any v. State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1824 . In that case, the Managing Director and the Production Manager of a Public Limited Company were prosecuted for an offence under Essential Commodities Act and it was contended on behalf of the accused persons that they could not in law be prosecuted unless the company itself was prosecuted This contention was rejected by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and also on appeal by special leave by the Supreme Court. Rejecting this contention, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court had observed that s. 10 does not state that if the person contravening on order made under Essential Commodities Act is a company, prosecution of the Directors, Officers and servants of the company or other persons is precluded unless the company itself is prosecuted and there was no statutory compulsion that the person in charge or an officer of the company may not be prosecuted unless he be ranged with the company itself. Their Lordships went even further to hold that each or any of them may be separately prosecuted or along with the company, In this state of law, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the petitioners can very well be prosecuted provided other conditions are fulfilled even though the firm itself has not been proceeded against. 3. To elaborate the second contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the report made by the police under s.11of the Essential Commodities Act which only indicated that the petitioner Ganapal Lal Gupta was the person in charge of the firm in question while the other petitioners were its partners. It was argued that a bald statement that Ganapat Lal Gupta was the person in charge was not enough to show that he was guilty or the contravention and in this connection reliance has been placed upon a Division Beach decision of this Court in Krishna Kumar Dalmia v. State, 1981 (11) CHN 301. It was argued that a bald statement that Ganapat Lal Gupta was the person in charge was not enough to show that he was guilty or the contravention and in this connection reliance has been placed upon a Division Beach decision of this Court in Krishna Kumar Dalmia v. State, 1981 (11) CHN 301. In that Case their Lordships were dealing with several criminal revision applications, some or which related to processes issued against the Directors of certain company under s. 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pensions Act, and it was held by their Lordships that although liability might extend not only to the company for an offence committed under the Act but also to other persons vicariously but only under conditions laid down in the Act It was pointed out by their Lordships that in that particular case there was no material to show that the Directors were in charge of the business or had any other control of the day to day business of the company and accordingly they could not he made liable for the offence alleged to have been committed by the company. This ruling hardly comes to the aid of the present petitioners as it is not an authority for the proposition then a complaint under s. 11 of the E. C. Act must contain all details to show how the petitioner, Ganapat Lal Gupta was in charge of the firm and that it was not enough to slate that he was in charge of it. Therefore, so far as the petitioner No. 1 Ganapat Lal Guph, is concerned, there is absolutely no ground to quash the proceeding. 4. Regarding the other petitioners, it is no doubt true that the complaint dose not show anything more than that they are partners of the offending firm which does not even state that they were in charge and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business or that the offence has been committed with their consent or connivance or attributable to any neglect on their part. Thus, although under the Partnership Act every partner is liable for an act or omission by any of the partners but in view or the specific provisions of s. 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, in must be held that so far as the criminal liability of the partners for an offence punishable under E. C. Act is concerned, the prosecution is clearly under a duty or obligation to show that the accused partner has not exercised due diligence to prevent contravention and for that purpose to make a corresponding 8l1egatlnn in the complaint. Therefore, it is held that no charge should have been framed against the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as there was no prima facie allegation to show that they have committed any offence punishable under any section of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. In view of the findings above, the proceeding is quashed so far as the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The trial would proceed against petitioner No. 1, Ganapat Lal Gupta. 6. The Rule is disposed of Send the records at once to the Magistrate, who is directed to dispose of the case with utmost expedition. Proceedings against petitioner No. 1 to proceed and as against petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 quashed.