JUDGMENT 1. - These are four criminal revision petitions against order passed in four cases under the Minimum Wages Act being Criminal Revisions 14/82, 15/82, 16/82, 17/82 by the District and Session Judge, Jaipur. All of them have been decided on identical grounds. The prosecution is for the purpose of non-maintenance and non-supplying and disposal and not making available the various record to be kept by a Company under the Minimum Wages Act. 2. The allegation is that when the Inspector went to inspect the various requirement of the Minimum Wages Act, in the shape of maintenance of the record were not made available and therefore the laws were violated. In all these cases the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the company has not been made a party and therefore, no prosecution can be allowed to be continued against the Managing Director. In the complaint the allegation is that the non-petitioner is responsible and liable for the enforcement, compliance and implementation of the various provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and other Factories Laws which have the Factory. A number of non-compliance of Rules 27, 26, etc, have been mentioned in the complaint in Para No. 4 and they are 8 in number. 3. The complaint has been quashed by the lower court where in it has been held that when the company made a part & specific allegation not made against the officers the complaint cannot be entertained Mr. Kamal Shrimal, Public Prosecutor pointed out that the Calcutta High Court in Maya Chand v. Inspector Minimum Wages Act has not laid down the correct law, and even otherwise after the amendment of 1973 in the Criminal Procedure Code it is the offence against which the cognizance is taken and not the offender, and there no prosecution can be quashed only on the ground that one or two of the offenders have not been made party. 4. 4. Now before I proceed to examine the relevant theme of the decision of the Calcutta High Court I must mention that a bare perusal of the Section 22(C) shows that in cases of company's bye statute every person who at the time of the offence was committed was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company itself is deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This legal fiction and deeming provision introduced by the Legislature has got great bearing in the interpretation of the law in respect of the liability of the various officers of the Company. It appears that the Legislature was keen that the laws which have been in the field of Corpn. and the Industrial sector must be obeyed and officers of the company or important alike holding the post of either should not be allowed to go scot free, merely by saying that they are not responsible. This particular object was sought to be achieved by making this deeming provision in which it was said that shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, which is a sort of exception or an extra-ordinary feature in a criminal law. 5. Now such being the state of law it is also important to note that a proviso has been mentioned where the burden has been shifted as such officers or such persons they are required to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised due diligence to prevent the such commission of offence. It appears that 22(C) has introduced an important change and alteration in the normal burden of proof requirement in a criminal case. Here there has been a sort of presumption introduced by which the burden is shifted on the accused to show that it was done without his knowledge. 6. It appears that 22(C) has introduced an important change and alteration in the normal burden of proof requirement in a criminal case. Here there has been a sort of presumption introduced by which the burden is shifted on the accused to show that it was done without his knowledge. 6. To amplify it in the present case if it is proved that the omission and commission of not maintaining the register documents etc., as laid down or catalogued in the complaint are proved that normally the company would be liable and the officers would be liable and if it is only when they are able to show that as the Managing Director or as the Manager, or as the Secretary they took all diligence to see that provisions of that Act have been implemented but the violation omissions, commissions have been done by the lower cadre of the company without their knowledge, then certainly they would be liable to get benefit and would be acquitted or discharged as the case may be. 7. Now in the above context let us examine the Maya Chand's case. 8. A reading of the judgment shows that in the Calcutta case as a finding of fact it found that the accused have maintained registers according to Shops and Establishment Act and the Rules there under and these registers would suffice for the requirements of Minimum Wages Act and Rules also and therefore they would not be liable for prosecution under the Minimum Wages Act and Rules because the Act cannot contemplate the maintenance of separate registers inspite of the fact that a set of registers another Act provides the same information as required in the Minimum Wages Act. Another reason given was that notice issued was not in conformity with the Rule 26-B and Sub-rule (2). Now in addition to the above the court also observed that when a firm has not been made a party then the partners cannot be made a party and the General Manager and the Manager of the firm also cannot be prosecuted. Another reason given was that notice issued was not in conformity with the Rule 26-B and Sub-rule (2). Now in addition to the above the court also observed that when a firm has not been made a party then the partners cannot be made a party and the General Manager and the Manager of the firm also cannot be prosecuted. This was based on 22(C)(ii) which mentions that when an offence under the Act has been committed by the company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent and connivance of it is attributable to any neglect on the part of Director, Manager or Secretary then such Director, Manager or Secretary of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Now a firm has been included in this Clause (ii). 9. It would thus be seen that the main theme of the Calcutta High Court decision is based on the facts that there has been compliance under the Shops and Establishment Act and there is no violation. It is true that the Calcutta High Court has said that if the company has not been made a party. With due respect it is difficult to appreciate and accept this because when the Managing Director or the Secretary or the Manager or some other officers like pay masters or employees who are required to maintain the registers if they are made parties then they are certainly liable and responsible. It would be a different thing if they are made liable by deeming provision and the accused may say that when you want a person to be made liable by deeming provision and the main accused for which the deeming provision is to apply has not been made a party then the legal fiction would not apply in the shape of vicarious liability or otherwise. 10. However, these are all questions which may be gone into at an appropriate stage. 11. In my opinion a reading of the complaint shows that there is averment that the Managing Director is liable for due performance, compliance & implementation of all provisions of the Minimum Wages Act which have not been complied with according to the omissions and commissions narrated in the complaint. 11. In my opinion a reading of the complaint shows that there is averment that the Managing Director is liable for due performance, compliance & implementation of all provisions of the Minimum Wages Act which have not been complied with according to the omissions and commissions narrated in the complaint. I fail to understand how the Sessions Judge or for that purpose any other person could have thought that there is no allegation. The allegation is there. It is a different matter that the allegation is proved or not. But that is not the case at this stage of proof. 12. In view of the above, I would not enter into the controversy raised by Mr. Shrimal that after the amendment of 1973 it is the offence against which cognizance is taken and not the offender and therefore even if the complaint does not contain any such material even then the Managing Director, the Manager or the Secretary are liable to be prosecuted and punished. 13. For the above reasons, the revision petitions are allowed, the judgment of the Sessions Judge is set aside. The trial court would, now proceed according to law.Revision Allowed. *******