Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The petitioner, who happens to be the Chairman of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, Ranchi has challenged the entire criminal proceeding against him in C. J. Case No. 131 of 1987 including the order dated 30-11-1987 by whicia cognizance of offence under Section 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was taken against the petitioner also subsequent order dated 12-9-1988 by which the petition filed by the petitioner before that court for relief under Section 205 and also under Section 305 Cr. P. C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj was rejected. 2. The abovementioned case was instituted and registered on the basis of a prosecution report filed by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Daltonganj under Sections 23 and 24 of the said Act, as there were breach of the Rules 5 (74), 18 (4) and 81 (3) of the Central Rule framed under the Act. The prosecution was lodged against the petitioner as a first accused while the second accused was made to one Shri A. K. Biswas, who happens to be the Agent/Project Manager of the Corporation. The violation of the Rules are complained with regard to the Semra Mines at Daltonganj and the petitioner being the Chairman and Managing Director is having an office of the Corporation situated at Ranchi. 3. The gievance of the petitioner is that he being the Chairman-cum- Managing Director appointed by the Government and as such cannot be removed from office without sanction of the Governor. The prosecution lodged against the petitioner is barred as no sanction have been taken as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The second contention is that the petitioner does not come within the purview of definition of principal employer as per Section 2 (1) (g) of this Act. The prosecution lodged against the petitioner is barred as no sanction have been taken as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The second contention is that the petitioner does not come within the purview of definition of principal employer as per Section 2 (1) (g) of this Act. This prosecution is in respect of a mine situated at Palamau and as such the definition of principal employer would come within the Clause-3 of Section 2 (1) (g) which runs as follows : "In a mine the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the Manager of the mine, the person so named." In the present case, the accused No. 2, Shri A. K. Biswas has been specifically mentioned as agent and as such he may come within the purview of the definition of principal employer, but not the petitioner. 4 It is further contended that the petitioners liability may be of over all supervision but for the specific violations in the technical sense as contemplated under the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Act shall lie on the person who was directly incharge of Mine at the relevant time and for abiding of provisions under the Act. There is no scope of any vicarious liability against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director when the Act itself is silent to that effect. 5. This point has been raised in various criminal writs filed before this Court and the same was decided by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1980 BBCJ page-573J. P. Gupta V/s. State of Bihar, wherein it has been held specifially that for violation of the provisions, the complainant must allege definitely against the persons contravening and the liability cannot be fastened constructively In para 9 of that judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has dealt the matter in comparison with Section 10 of the Mines Act, 1952 wherein there is specific provisions regarding vicarious liability to be fixed on the owner/agent and Manager of the Mine, but the present Act is silent to that effect. There is nothing in the complaint that the present petitioner was any way involved in the employment of the contract labourer nor any way assigned any direct involvement of the petitioner with the contravention of the Rules for which prosecution has been launched. 6. There is nothing in the complaint that the present petitioner was any way involved in the employment of the contract labourer nor any way assigned any direct involvement of the petitioner with the contravention of the Rules for which prosecution has been launched. 6. In a criminal case, of such nature technical liability, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to allege as to who are the persons who have contravened the provisions or restrictions. Merely with a vague allegation of contravention, the principal employer cannot be prosecuted. Present case, as such, squarely covers by the decision as mentioned above. On this point alone, the prosecution against the petitioner can be held to be illegal and the same is required to be quashed. 7. It appears from the impugned order also that the learned court below was also aware of the position, but as cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Magistrate concerned helpless to revise the same. The other points raised does not require to be adjudicated as the prosecution itself is found to be bad on the above score alone. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding mentioned above is hereby quashed against the petitioner alone. It should be mentined here that the prosecution shall proceed against the other accused.