Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter to be referred to as the Code has been filed by the above named petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Giddi P.S. case No. 68 of 1987 (G.R. Case No. 2337 of 1987) and also the order dated 1.8.1992 by which cognizance of the offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (the Act) was taken against the petitioners by the Special Judge, Hazaribagh. 2. When the cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge. Hazaribagh, the petitioners came up before this Court on earlier occasion in Cr. Misc. No. 4190 of 1992 (R) but this Court allowed the petitioners to with draw their petition under Sec. 482 of the Code in that case giving liberty to raise their points before the Special Judge, Hazaribagh, at the appropriate stage. After withdrawal of the abovementioned case, the petitioners filed a petition before the Special Judge, Hazaribagh, on 21-1- 1993 for discharge of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the firm, namely. M/s. New Bharat Refractories where criminal case had been instituted under Sec. 7 of the Act against the aforesaid firm, but such petition was dismissed and direction was made to frame charges under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 469 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Act against the petitioners along with others. According the petitioners, M/s. New Bharat Refractories Limited is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and its registered office is situated at Lilua. Howrah within the State of West Bengal having its factory situated at Baraichnagar, under Ramgarh Police Station. In the year 1981, M/s. New Bharat Refractories Limited had its Board of Directors consisting of three persons namely, Kedar Nath Agarwal, petitioner No. 2, Ram Pravesh Agarwal and Ram Naresh Agarwal, petitioner No. 1. But subsequently the petitioners had transferred their share to R.C. Agarwal and Smt. Sarala Agarwal in the year 1982 and then the petitioners have ceased all their connections as Directors of the said Company. But subsequently the petitioners had transferred their share to R.C. Agarwal and Smt. Sarala Agarwal in the year 1982 and then the petitioners have ceased all their connections as Directors of the said Company. After 1982 M/s. New Bharat Refractories Limited have got the Board of Directors consisting of three persons, namely, Ram Pravesh Agarwal R.C. Agarwal and Smt. Sarala Agarwal and the annual report of the Company in the name of the Board of Directors as mentioned above was submitted the Registrar of the Companies in the year 1982 which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to this petition and the said Directors since 1982 continued to remain so, In the year 1987 the annual report also, the names of the three Directors as mentioned above by the aforementioned Company were recorded and the Annexure 2 reveals so. Thus, according to the petitioners, since after 1982, the petitioners had no connection as Directors of the abovementioned Company and as per the Factories Act, only the Directors are deemed to be occupier and responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company. On 10-11-1987 one Dineshwar Prasad Choudhary lodged a First Information Report with the officer-in-charge of Mandu Police Station in the district of Hazaribagh, alleging that M/s. New Bharat Refractories Limited was indulging in illegal trade of coal and thereby violating the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order. 1984, (the Unification Order) and have thus committed an offence under Sec. 7 of the Act. It was also alleged that in making some illegal trade, several documents have been forged by the above-mentioned Company and its officials. It was alleged that the coal was being smuggled to the State of Uttar Pradesh from the State of Bihar violating all Rules/Orders time to time passed by the State Government and also as per the Unification Order mentioned above. 3. From the very beginning the petitioners were taking the plea that in the first information report, illegally their names have been mentioned, as Directors of M/s. New Bharat Refractories Limited. They were not in any way connected as Directors of the Company as they have already transferred their share long back in the year 1982 and a separate Board of Directors had been constituted since 1982 and that continued till 1987 also. They were not in any way connected as Directors of the Company as they have already transferred their share long back in the year 1982 and a separate Board of Directors had been constituted since 1982 and that continued till 1987 also. It was mentioned that out of three Directors, Ram Pravesh Agarwal was the Managing Director and he was only looking after the factory situated at Ramgarh in the district of Hazaribagh. This point was raised by the petitioners when they moved for bail and practically on consideration of that point, their bail was granted. It is also the contention of the petitioners that during the course of investigation also, it came to the knowledge of the investigating agency that the present petitioners were in no way connected as Directors of the abovementioned Company and having any control/management of the day to day affairs of the Company in question. 4. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners had referred to paragraph 109 of the case diary wherein the Investigating Agency had recorded that on query it could be found that the petitioners were not the Directors of the Company at the relevant time of offence. While the investigation was being supervised, the Supervising Officer also found that since 1984 the petitioners were not the Directors of the Company and since 1984 Ram Pravesh Agrawal, Ram Chandra Agrawal and Smt. Sarla Agrawal were the Directors of the Company but still the petitioners have been charge-sheeted in the case and mechanically cognizance have also been taken against the petitioners by the Special Judge, Hazaribagh. 5. The involvement of the petitioners with the crime is in the nature of vicarious liability as Directors of the Company as contemplated under Sec. 10 of the Act, Their direct involvement might not be there in the offence alleged but being the Directors of the Company they were arrayed as accused persons for commission of the offence alleged. Sec. 10 of the Act runs as follow: "10. Offences by companies. Sec. 10 of the Act runs as follow: "10. Offences by companies. - (1) If the person contravening an order made under Sec. 3, is a Company, every person who at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-sec. shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager secretary or other officer of shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation- For the purpose of this section (a) "company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in: relation to a firm means a partner in the firm." 6. From the above provisions of law it is clear that any person contravening any order who is connected with the Company can be sued or prosecuted but the Directors of the Company are liable to be prosecuted even if there may not be any direct involvement with the crime. But any such person connected with the Company not being the Director may also be prosecuted if it could be found that such person was in connivance with or in commission of the offence but such officials of the Company or Directors may be let off if it could be proved that such offence was committed within their knowledge or all diligence were taken by them to prevent any contravention of the order i.e. offence. Such sort of vicarious liability in the negative approach under the criminal jurisprudence have been questioned in respect of Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974, in a Full Bench of this Court in Mahmud Ali V/s. The State of Bihar, It was held that the Directors of the Company even if not proved to have direct connivance with the offence committed but being Directors they cannot shirk the responsibility of the commission of the offence by the Company and they are liable to be prosecuted. It was held that such rule of law might be stringent and rigorous out for preventing the offences by the Companies the Directors are to be held liable even without, the proof of direct connivance or diligence. 7. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, appearing for and on behalf of the State has relied upon the above Full Bench decision and provision of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 10 of the Act to the effect that at this stage there is no scope to, interfere with the criminal prosecution against the petitioners as the matter shall be kept open for the petitioners at the time of trial to prove their non-connection with Company at the relevant time or their direct involvement with the crime. But on careful scrutiny of the whole of the case diary it could be found that against these petitioners, there is no other material except the alleged designation of the petitioners being the Directors of the Company. No where it is there in the case diary or in the charge-sheet as to the involvement of the petitioners with the crime in their individual capacity or in any other way being connected with the Company. Their prosecution is totally and solely on the basis of their being Directors of the Company is question. When the fact came into the knowledge of the Investigating Agency also the Supervising Officer, then there was no scope of filing charge-sheet against the petitioners. It has not been stated in the charge-sheet also as to how the petitioners were involved with the crime. But very artistically their designation as Directors of the Company have been deleted to avoid findings in the case diary while submitting charge-sheet. It has not been stated in the charge-sheet also as to how the petitioners were involved with the crime. But very artistically their designation as Directors of the Company have been deleted to avoid findings in the case diary while submitting charge-sheet. But against the petitioners, prosecution regarding the crime is only based on being the Directors of the Company having no other materials against them, then to avoid the submission of final form against the petitioners their names have been included in the charge-sheet not as Directors but in the individual capacity. 8. From the discussions made above the State could not show a single lone of the involvement of the petitioners with the crime in their individual capacity. Thus when the petitioners have been prosecuted as Directors of M/s. New Bharat Refractories Company and when it could be found during the course of investigation itself that they were not the Directors at the relevant time of occurrence, then the prosecution against the petitioners alleging their individual involvement with the crime is definitely bad in the eye of law and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Hence this petition is hereby allowed and the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners are hereby quashed.