Judgment R. N. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners by this application have prayed for quashing the entire prosecution vide trial No.96 of 1983 initiated on the prosecution report dated 20-4-1979 under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities act for violation of the provision of Clause 9 of Sugar Cane Control order, 1966. 2. There is mill called Hari Nagar Sugar Mill Ltd. at Ram Nagar, west Champaran. The cane officer of Ram Nagar Circle filed a complaint dated 20-4-1979 against the petitioners alleging that inspite of direction Hari nagar Sugar Mill could not submit return etc. , which is in contravention of clause 9 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Sec.7 of the Essantial Commodities Act and the petition of the petitioners to discharge was also dismissed vide order dated 5-12-1983. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of the sugar mills and there is no allegation in the complaint petition, which can be taken as making out a case against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint petition there is no mention at all that the petitioners were, at the same of contravention, incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as well as there is no allegation that the offence was committed with the consent o r connivance of these petitioners and accordingly submitted that the cognizance as well as entire proceeding is illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in sri Ram Dalmia V/s. The State, AIR 1961 Patna 361, Ram Chandra Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, 1986 BBCJ 327 , Sham Sunder and others V/s. State of Haryana and AIR 1989 SC 1982 =1990 (1) BLJ 593 (SC) in which it has been held that the prosecution has to establish the requisite condition as mentioned in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act that during the relevant time the accused persons were incharge of the business or the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of the accused persons. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the state could not be able to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the learned counsel submitted that it is not necessary to mention in the complaint petition that the accused persons were incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or the offence has been committed in connivance of the accused persons. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the State has got no force. 5. From perusal of Sec.10 of the Essential Commodities Act itself, it is evident that it is for the prosecution to establish the requisite condition that the accused persons were responsible for carrying on business at the relevant time or the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of the accused persons and then the obligation of the accused beings to drove that the offence took place without his knowledge or at the relevant time the petitioner was not in charge of the business. In the instant case, from perusal of the complaint petition it is obvious that no such allegation has been made out against the petitioners that at the relevant time petitioners were incharge and responsible for submission of the return etc. and Clause 9 of the Sugar Cane Control Order was not complied with the consent or connivance of these petitioners and as such I am left with no option but to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the criminal prosecution vide trial No.96 of 1983 initiated against the petitioners is quashed, which is pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, West champaran. Application allowed.