R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminalprocedure (Code for short) for setting aside and quashing the order dated24. 3. 1990 of the learned M. M. and the order dated 21. 10. 1992 of the learnedasj, New Delhi. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitionerhad filed a complaint under Sections 63 to 70 of the Copyright Act. 1957 (Act for short) against the second respondent M/s. S. Chand and Co. Ltd. andits Managing Director S. L. Gupta for infringement of his copyright. Alongwith the complaint he also appended a decision of the Copyright Board inwhich a finding was given by the Board that without doubt the respondentswere guilty of infringing the petitioner s copyright and that the claim of thepetitioner was just and rightful. It appears that S. L. Gupta expired later on. Therefore the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Coderead with Section 69 of the Act to summon the other two Directors, namely,rajinder Kumar Gupta and Ravinder Kumar Gupta because they were fulltime Directors. It may be noted that they were not parties to the proceedings before the Copyright Board. In this application, it appears that thei petitioner did not make any allegation that those two Directors were inchargeof and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. Learnedmagistrate, therefore dismissed the application holding that there was nothing on record to show that they were party to the Commission of theoffences. That order was upheld by the learned ASJ. ( 3 ) EVEN now the petitioner has not made any allegation that thosetwo persons were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conductof its business. I am of the view that in the absence of these allegations inthe complaint, it could not be said that Rajinder Kumar Gupta and Ravinderkumar Gupta were guilty of any offences. For making them liable, the petitioner should have alleged in the complaint that they were also inchargeof, and responsible to the Company for, the conduct of the business of thecompany, and without such allegation and proof/criminal liability cannot beinferred. For making them liable, the petitioner should have alleged in the complaint that they were also inchargeof, and responsible to the Company for, the conduct of the business of thecompany, and without such allegation and proof/criminal liability cannot beinferred. ( 4 ) MOREOVER, it may further be noted that Hon ble Supreme Court inthe case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Supp.)SCC 132 has held that, "where a revision petition is dismissed by thesessions Court, a second revision would not lie to the High Court. Merelyby saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherentpower was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. Ifthat was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397 (3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482. " ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended that he hadreferred Article 227 of the Constitution also under which this petition hasbeen filed. I have perused that Article. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, I am of the view that this Article has no application. Petition is,therefore, dismiss in limine.