JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Both the petitioners are accused persons in 2(c)CC No. 20 of 2001 of the Court of S.D.J.M. Jharsuguda. A prosecution was lunched by opposite party No. 1. i.e., the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Rourkela, alleging contravention of the provision in Section 10 constituting the offence u/s 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act'). It is alleged in the complaint (Prosecution Report) that on 9.11.2000 on an inspection it was found that certain numbers of contract labourer had been engaged in Mine No. 2 at Lakhanpur in contravention of Notification No. S-16011/1/74-LS dated 1.2.75 and S.O. 2063 dated 21.6.88 of the Government of India. Ministry of Labour and thereby accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed the offence u/s 23 for the breach of Section 10(i) of the Act and the other two accused person are abettor of the said offence. 4. Sub-section (i) of Section 10 of the Act which is relevant providing prohibition of employment of Contract Labour and the penal Provision i.e. Section 23 of the Act read as hereunder: 10 Prohibition of employment of contract labour (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or,-as the case may be, a State Board prohibit, by notification in the official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. 23. Contravention of provisions regarding employment of contract labour whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rules made thereunder prohibiting, restricting or regulating the employment of contract labour, or contravenes any condition of a licence granted under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and in the case of continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. It is crystal clear from the above granted provision that a person can be arrayed as an accused if he as contravened any provision of that Act or of any Rules or Notification made thereunder relating to prohibition of employment of contract labour. In this case, the allegation in the complaint makes out a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 23 of the Act. 5. Opposite party No. 1 has arrayed the two petitioners as the principal offenders and proforma petitioners as the principal offenders and proforma opposite' party Nos. 2 and 3 (accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the original Court) as the abettors. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior-Counsel inviting attention of the Court to Section 25 of the Act argues that no case is made out against the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Central) on analysing the provision of law and the averment in the complaint concedes that a prima facie case is not made out to issue process against Sri Surendra Prasad Singh, accused/petitioner No.. 1. 6. For a ready reference Section 25 of the Act is quoted below: 25. Offences by companies - (1) If the person committing ah offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offences shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (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 that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, such director, manager, managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 7. 7. Accused/petitioner No. 2 Sri Satyapal Singh being admittedly the General Manger, Lakhanpur Area Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., he becomes an accused of the alleged contravention of Section 10 of the Act. But as nothing is indicated in the complaint regarding involvement of accused/petitioner No. 1 Sri Surendra Prasad Singh as the Director (Technical) so at present he cannot be compelled to face a trial for the alleged offence u/s 23 of the Act, in that respect, this Court holds that keeping in view the above quoted provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act there should have been specific allegation against said Surendra Prasad Singh but that is not available on record. Therefore, issue of process against accused Surendra is not sustainable. It is the settled principle of law that order of issue of process against an accused can be reversed by this Court only when there is lack of prima facie case. In the instant case, on the basis of aforesaid analysis of law, facts and contention of the parties, this Court quashes the order of issue of process against accused Surendra Prasad Singh, Director (Technical). It is however observed that this order of quashing the issue of process against Surendra Prasad Singh shall not stand on the way if at the time of trial the prosecution or the trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record shall move/consider for inclusion of said Surendra Prasad Singh as an accused in accordance with Section 319. Code of Criminal Procedure. The Crl. Misc. Case is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.