JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the Order dated 10.9.1998 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dhanbad in RC Case No. 11 (S)/92(D), whereby and whereunder the application for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as stated that Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI, Dhanbad received information that M/s. Voltas Limited, Gillander House, N.S. Road, Calcutta and the petitioner Company entered into a conspiracy with each other and cheated M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad to the tune of Rs. 4,43,865/- by dishonestly and fraudulently claiming that import duty was paid to Calcutta Customs which was used in manufacture of self rescuers and supplied to BCCL. It is further alleged that Coal India Ltd. Calcutta placed an order No. CIL/C2D/ Self Rescuers/28520/Voltas/1543 dated 16.11.1985 to accused M/s. Voltas Ltd. for supply of 11,612 pieces of self-rescuers model W 65 at the rate of Rs. 670/- per piece. It was stipulate that any increase in the amount of custom duty was to be borne by accused M/s. Voltas Limited. However, in the event of reduction in the amount of customs duty or exemption thereof the benefit was to be passed on to the Coal India Ltd. It is further alleged that out of the said 11,612 pieces of self rescuers, accused Voltas Ltd. was to deliver 3500 pieces to BCCL, Dhanbad and the Finance Department was to make payment. The Voltas Ltd. was informed by BCCL Ltd. vide letter dated 20.12.1985 to supply 3500 pieces of self rescuers to different Regional Stores of BCCL of which accused petitioner supplied 3495 pieces of self rescuers to different Regional stores of BCCL and submitted bills claiming import duty in respect of materials supplied. Finance department of BCCL believing the documents genuine made payment for 3495 pieces of self rescuers at the rate of 670 per piece which included Rs. 127/- as import duty per piece. The FIR was lodged and the investigation was conducted for committing cheating and forgery and it was detected that the Company cheated the BCCL to the tune of Rs. 4,43,865/- by dishonestly and fraudulently claiming that import duty was paid to Calcutta Custom. 3. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Company for discharge. 4,43,865/- by dishonestly and fraudulently claiming that import duty was paid to Calcutta Custom. 3. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Company for discharge. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by the order dated 10.9.1998 against which this revision petition has been filed, 4. The teamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no direct transaction between the Company of the petitioner and BCCL and there is no such allegation in the charge-sheet. It is also submitted that the Company cannot be liable for any act of an employee who had left the Company long back and the Company cannot be sentenced for imprisonment or fine as for the offence under Section 420, IPC, there is provision for imprisonment and fine both. It is further argued that there is no evidence to show that the Company of the petitioner at any point of time made or prepared any false document as the accused No. 5 allegedly signed the papers as the Works Manager of the Company and for which the Company cannot be held responsible. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the cases reported in Sheoratan Agarwal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1824 and Anirudh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1986 East Cr. Cases, 576 (Pat). 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the Company has duly been represented through Chief Manager and it has been rightly held that the offence has been committed by the Company. 6. Obviously, this petition has been filed by the petitioner Company representing through Partho Sarkar, Chief Manager. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the case and it was disclosed that photo copy of custom bill of Entry No. 1-436 dated 28.5.1985 submitted to the BCCL is a forged one and amount mentioned in the bill of Entry was never deposited with the Custom authority and it was found that BCCL was cheated to the tune of Rs. 4,43,865 by the persons authorised to have been working in the said Company. Admittedly, the Company has been represented through the Chief Manager, in this petition. Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also clear to this effect. 4,43,865 by the persons authorised to have been working in the said Company. Admittedly, the Company has been represented through the Chief Manager, in this petition. Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also clear to this effect. There is no illegality in impleading the Company as accused, though the persons being responsible were working at the relevant time would be held responsible for the cheating and mischief. 7. It has been held that even if an offence is committed by the Firm, it must be stated that the offence has been committed by the firm/company because the agreement whatever it may be was made on behalf of the Company itself. In Sheoratan Agarwals case (supra), it was held that there was no statutory compulsion that the person in charge or any officer of the Company may not be prosecuted unless he be ranged alongside of the Company itself. The said case was in respect of an Essential Commodities Act. Section 10 of the said Act indicates the persons who may be prosecuted where the contravention is made by the Company. Thus, the facts of the instant case is quite distinguishable to the case of Sheoratan Agarwal (supra. Moreover, the authorised person has duly been represented in the said Company. Thus, in my view, the Company itself has rightly been included as accused. Hence, there appears no illegality in the impugned order to be interfered. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accord ingly dismissed. 9. Revision dismissed.