JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The petitioner is accused in 2 (c) CC No. 32 of 1999 in the Court learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh. The said proceeding was initiated as per the complaint filed by the District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Nayagarh (O.P.No. 3) in the matter of an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D.Case No. 155 of 1993. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner, who was the Chairman of the M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. did not implement the award passed by the P.O., Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in the above noted I.D.Case in favour of a workman. On the said complaint, learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh took cognizance of offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner-Chairman and the Secretary of M/s. Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd., Nayagarh. The petitioner has filed the present application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cogni¬zance dated 1.10.2001. 2. Mr. D.P.Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Chennai, Madras had taken over the management of the M/s. Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd., Nayagarh for a period of 12 years by virtue of an agreement dated 12.1.1991 and after expiry of that period now M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. is no more in management of the Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. and so the petitioner, who is the Chairman of M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemi¬cals Ltd. has no scope of implementing the award and as such he cannot be prosecuted under Section 29 of the I.D.Act for non-implementation of the award passed by the P.O., Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D.Case No. 155 of 1993. According to Mr. Nanda, M/s. Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd., Nayagarh is now to implement the above said award and so the order of cognizance against the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. 3. Ms. Kasturi, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that when the award was passed in favour of the workman, M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Nayagarh was in management of the Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. Nayagarh and the petitioner being the Chairman and in-charge of the management of that industry is liable for prosecution under Sec. 29 of the I.D.Act for non-implementation of the award. She further submits that whether the petitioner was in charge of the management at the relevant point of time and whether M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. was liable to implement the award in terms of the agreement are matters to be decided through evidence during the trial and are not to be examined at the stage of cognizance. 4. Law is well settled that at the stage of cognizance neither mini trial is to be conducted nor evidence are to be thoroughly examined to find out if such evidence can warrant a conviction of the accused for the alleged offence. While considering cognizance the Court is supposed to examine only the materials produced by the prosecution and if the materials placed by the prosecution accepted in its entirety, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences in a prima facie manner, then cognizance has to be taken. (See (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 177, *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi). In the present case, the materials produced by the prosecution disclose that M/s. Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. was in management of the M/s. Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd., Nayagarh for a period of 12 years as per the agreement dated 12.1.1991 and the petitioner was the Chairman of M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. during the relevant period. It is also not disputed that the award was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D.Case No. 155 of 1993 in favour of a worker and the said award remained un-implemented. These materials are sufficient to constitute prima facie case for offence under Sec. 29 of the I.D.Act against the petitioner. Whether the award is implement¬able, whether the M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. is liable to implement that order in view of the subsequent develop¬ments; whether the petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company at the relevant point of time are all matters to be decided at the stage of trial. Learned S.D.J.M., was, therefore, perfectly justified in taking cognizance of offence under Sec. 29 of the I.D.Act and directing issuance of process to accused persons. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. Learned S.D.J.M., was, therefore, perfectly justified in taking cognizance of offence under Sec. 29 of the I.D.Act and directing issuance of process to accused persons. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the remark relating to the facts of this case made in the order are not binding on the trial Court and the trial Court shall dispose of the issues on their own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. Petition dismissed.