Judgment Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report as well as the charges framed against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners alongwith one Mohan Kumar are facing trial for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegations that their company by the name of M/s Punjab Lime and the Chalk Industries is manufacturing cement in defiance of the provisions of the Cement (Quality) Control Order, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Order which prohibits manufacture, sale etc. of cement which is not of the prescribed standard. It is alleged that the company of the petitioners does not have any licence to manufacture cement as well as sale of sub-standard cement on the date when inspection was made of the premises of the company. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. It is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the complaint it is no where mentioned if the petitioners have anything to do with the manufacture or running of the affairs of the company. The learned counsel has referred to proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short "the Act"), which reads as under :- "10. Offences by companies : (1) If the person contravening an order made under Section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time of the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for, the conduct of the 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-section 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." 5. A simple reading of the aforesaid provision of the Act specifically reveals that if a person, who, at the time of contravention, was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be the guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be punished accordingly. 6. 6. The learned counsel has also referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 SC 167 and Sham Sunder and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 1982 in support of the contention raised that as the petitioners are not responsible for carrying on the business, they are not liable to the prosecuted. 7. Learned counsel for the State has contended that since the trial Court has already framed the charge against the petitioners alongwith others and the trial against them was never stayed by this Court, all the pleas, now taken by the petitioners, can well be looked into at the time of conclusion of the trial. Any order at this stage will pre-empt the decision to be given by the trial Court. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the observation that the trial Court shall keep in mind the aforesaid plea of the petitioners and the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in respect of the petitioners.