Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2708 of 1988 (R) has been taken up along with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3978 of 1988 (R) for disposal together. In both the cases, common arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and this judgment will govern both the cases. 2. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2708 of 1988 (R) is directed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance dated March 1, 1988, passed by Shri A. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who had taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Contract (Regulation) Rules which is punishable under Sections 23 and 24 of the said Act. , 3. Similarly, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3978 of 1988 (R") cognizance has been taken on March 24, 1988, against the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, for not keeping the wage register at the work spot and the register in Form B was not maintained. In this case, inspection was made by the complainant, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chirkunda, Dhanbad, on December 17, 1987, and the complainant detected that the aforesaid two registers were not maintained as per Rule 5A of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. 4. In another Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2708 of 1988 (R), the inspection was made on December 17, 1987, and several contraventions of the provisions of the rules were found like non-maintenance of muster roll register, non-maintenance of register of persons employed at the work spot, non-maintenance of register of deduction for damage or loss and fine and register of advance at the work spot, non-maintenance of register of overtime, non-issue of employment card to each worker, non-issue of wage slips to the workers, executive contract work with the contract labour numbering 24 without a valid licence, etc. 5. Thereafter, in both the cases complaints were filed by the complainant and cognizance of the offences was taken in both the cases on the dates stated above and in these circumstances, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner and the orders taking cognizance in both the cases have been challenged in these two applications. 6. Mr. 5. Thereafter, in both the cases complaints were filed by the complainant and cognizance of the offences was taken in both the cases on the dates stated above and in these circumstances, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner and the orders taking cognizance in both the cases have been challenged in these two applications. 6. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both cases, has submitted that the petitioner is admittedly the proprietor of the firm and as such he is not liable for prosecution. His further argument is that the petitioner being the proprietor of the company and the company having not been made an accused, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted who, according to him, is said to be one of the partners of the firm and the deed of partnership has been filed in support of it. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner being responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm or the contract work is solely responsible for contraventions of the Rules which themselves are punishable. It was also submitted that a complaint is maintainable without the company being impleaded as a party in a case. 8. In both the cases, the petitioner, Naresh Kumar, has been described as proprietor of Sikri Bros. C/o. Naresh Kumar and Co. at Bastacolla, Dhansar, Dhanbad. In both the cases, a supplementary affidavit along with an unregistered power of attorney has been filed to show that the petitioner is a partner and has appointed one Joginder Singh Bhasin to look after the business as the manager of the said firm, Naresh Kumar and Co., and this power-of-attorney is dated April 30, 1986. 9. The inspection in this case was made on December 17, 1987. The complaint was filed on March 21, 1988. The power of attorney, therefore, which is an unregistered one and is the matter of defence cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. The power of attorney may be changed during the course of time and it will be difficult to fix responsibility on any person if such change is made in the power of attorney and different persons are appointed to look after the affairs of the company by the proprietor or the partners. 10. The power of attorney may be changed during the course of time and it will be difficult to fix responsibility on any person if such change is made in the power of attorney and different persons are appointed to look after the affairs of the company by the proprietor or the partners. 10. In an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the disputed facts and the defence of the accused cannot be examined by this court in detail to find out as to how far the defence propounded by the accused or the petitioner is correct which is only permissible in course of regular trial. The exercise of extraordinary power vested in this court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be exercised sparingly and not to examine and decide disputed matters which pertains to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner is a proprietor or a partner of the company cannot be examined at this stage specially when it has been challenged by the opposite parties that the power of attorney cannot be considered as a valid document as it is an unregistered one and it may be changed to meet the exigencies of the situation. 11. It is true that this court had directed the opposite parties to file a counter-affidavit to make their stand clear as to whether the petitioner is a proprietor or a partner of the company but no counter-affidavit has been filed but this itself cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. We have to confine ourselves within the allegations made and the materials available on the record when the complaint was filed and to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out on the allegations as contained in the complaint petition without adding or subtracting anything out of it. 12. In paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, it has been clearly stated that the accused is the contractor and at the time the offence was committed, he was also responsible for the conduct of its day-to-day business. Therefore, whether he is a proprietor or a partner makes no difference when there is specific allegation made that the petitioner was the contractor and was responsible for day-to-day work of the company and was in charge of it during the relevant time. Therefore, whether he is a proprietor or a partner makes no difference when there is specific allegation made that the petitioner was the contractor and was responsible for day-to-day work of the company and was in charge of it during the relevant time. This makes out a clear case that the petitioner was in charge of that company and was responsible for conduct of day-today business and affairs of that company. Therefore, if any offence is committed by the contractor of that company, the company will be responsible and liable for contravention of any of the provisions or the rules of that Act. Therefore, there is no escape from the responsibility of the petitioner in view of the specific case made out by the complainant that the petitioner was in charge of and was responsible for the day-to-day administration o£ the company and was looking after it. 13. In this connection, a Full Bench of this court in the case of Madan Mohan Upadhyay V/s. State of Bihar [1986] Pat LJR 537 had held that "if an offence is committed by a company or a firm its director, person responsible to and was in charge of the business of the company are liable for prosecution and this allegation need not be made in the complaint petition itself". 14. Similar view was also expressed in another Full Bench of this court in the case of Mahmud Ali V/s. State of Bihar [1986] Pat LJR 123 ; AIR 1986 Patna 133, in which it was held that "once the allegation is levelled or established then by a fiction of law every person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business is, in the eye of law, punishable unless the contrary is proved" 15. Therefore, this is not the stage to examine in detail about the defence of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that since an allegation has been levelled against him that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of day-to-day affairs of the company, he becomes primarily responsible for any offence committed unless the contrary is proved in course of trial. Therefore, on a mere reading of the complaint petition, it cannot be said that no case at all is made out. 16. Therefore, on a mere reading of the complaint petition, it cannot be said that no case at all is made out. 16. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling in the case of L. K. Ahuja V/s. State of Bihar [1988] East Crl. C 350 (Patna), in which a Bench of this court had held that "if one person residing at Dhanbad is looking after the affairs of the firm, the trial will proceed against him for the offence of the company under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and not against the rest who were residing outside Dhanbad", but this is not the fact in this case. In this case, a specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and conduct of the business of the company which was not so made out in that case. There may be several partners or other persons of that company but so far as responsibility of management is concerned, it rests with this petitioner according to the allegation. Therefore, facts of that case are quite different and are not applicable to the present case. It has not been stated in the complaint petition that there are different partners and the petitioner is one of them: The petitioner has been described as proprietor of the company and as such he was alleged to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. In the circumstances, unless the contrary is proved, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is sufficient, prima facie, to put him on trial. 17. In this case, it is the admitted position that the company has not been made an accused. Therefore, it has to be seen whether a proprietor or a partner can be prosecuted without the company being added as an accused in a case of this nature. In this case, the allegations taken as a whole indicate that the offence was committed by the company of which the petitioner was either the proprietor or the partner according to the defence and not residing at the site. In this case, the allegations taken as a whole indicate that the offence was committed by the company of which the petitioner was either the proprietor or the partner according to the defence and not residing at the site. Whatever may be his capacity, admittedly, the offence was committed by the company of which the petitioner was either the proprietor or the partner and if the offence was committed by the company or firm, its director or person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of day-to-day affairs of the company are vicariously made liable under the law and the Rules. 18. Therefore, it is, not at all necessary, but it is better to implead the company also as an accused, but without adding the company, if offence was committed by the company, the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company is liable for the offence committed without the company being added as party. 19. This matter also came up for examination by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheoratan Agarwal V/s. State of M. P., AIR 1984 SC 1824 , in which it was held that criminal prosecution of the person in charge of or officer of the company without prosecuting the company is permissible. The only necessity is that the offence must be committed by the company. In this view of the matter, the argument that without adding or impleading the company as an accused, the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of, the company cannot be prosecuted does not hold good. After all, the person who is in charge of and responsible to the company is to be punished and not the company. The company cannot be sent to jail but the person Who is looking after its day-to-day administration and affairs can be held responsible and if offence is proved, he can be punished. In this view of the matter, impleading the company as an accused is not necessary and its omission to do so is not vital for success of the case and, therefore, the person in charge of and responsible for its conduct of business, shall be liable and punishable. 20. In this view of the matter, impleading the company as an accused is not necessary and its omission to do so is not vital for success of the case and, therefore, the person in charge of and responsible for its conduct of business, shall be liable and punishable. 20. Such allegations, in view of the Full Bench decision of this court, is not required to be mentioned in the complaint petition but are to be ascertained in course of the evidence. In this case, such definite allegation has been made against the petitioner that he was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and the offence was committed by the company and as such ex facie the petitioner is liable for contravention of the provisions of the Rules in question. 21. In the result, I do not find any merit in these cases which are, accordingly, dismissed. Let the record be transmitted to the trial court for expeditious disposal of these cases.