Judgment :- (Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for the relief as stated therein.) Common Order: Criminal Original Petitions are to call for the records in S.M.S.T.C.No.148, 160, 180 of 2001 on the file of XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ripon Buildings, Chennai 600 003 and to quash the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner who is one of the partners of the firm called Jaya Soap Works has been booked for an offence under Section 287 of the City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The allegation found in the complaint is that the firm Jaya Soap Works failed to keep separate space for storing chemicals. 4. The further allegation is that when licence was granted to Jaya Soap Works for using 15 HP Motor, the said firm was found using 22 HP motor. That is the sum and substance of the allegation found in the aforesaid three cases. 5. The petitioner who is the accused in the aforesaid cases, challenges the criminal prosecution on three grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that Jaya Soap Works, which is a registered firm in whose name the licence stands was not prosecuted. The second ground alleged is that the other partners were not arrayed as accused in this case. The last plea taken by the petitioner is that the summon had not been served on the partnership firm as contemplated under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judicial Magistrate should not have issued the process in the above circumstances under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is contended. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner citing an authority reported in 1983 MLJ (Crl) 440 would submit that the Manager who is in charge of the affairs of the partnership firm should have been made as an accused. 7. It is his further submission that the petitioner has been wantonly singled out and was prosecuted by the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit that during the course of inspection of the premises of the firm, the petitioner alone was present and having found that there was violation of the rules and regulations of the Corporation, a notice was served upon the petitioner herein and he was thereafter prosecuted. 9. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Vs. 9. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others (1983 Mlj (Crl) – 440), that when there is no whisper or a shred of evidence about the complicity of the Directors of a Company in the offence alleged, the Directors cannot be mulcted with criminal liability. Such lack of pleading or lack of evidence cannot be taken advantage of by the Manager of the Company, as he is strictly in charge of his affairs by virtue of his office, it has been ruled. 10. In the present case, it is alleged that when the Corporation Officials inspected the premises of Jaya Soap Works, the petitioner who is admittedly one of the partners of Jaya Soap Works was very much present and the notice was served on him. Of course, the service of notice on the petitioner is disputed. 11. The partnership firm should have been arrayed as one of the accused in this case. But the Corporation has not chosen to lay the case as against the partnership firm. It is a well settled proposition of law that even when the Company or the partnership firm was not arrayed as one of the accused in a criminal case, the partner or the Director who was at the helms of the affairs can very well be prosecuted for the offence committed by the Company or the Partnership firm. 12. In the case referred to above, the complaint did not speak anything about the role of the Directors in the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the Directors were relieved of the criminal liability by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Manager of the said Company also wanted to take advantage of such lack of allegation in the complaint. But the Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that by virtue of the position as Manager, the Manager of a Company cannot shirk his responsibility and that he has to answer the criminal liability. In this case, it is reported that the petitioner has chosen not to divulge the other partners in the Company. But the Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that by virtue of the position as Manager, the Manager of a Company cannot shirk his responsibility and that he has to answer the criminal liability. In this case, it is reported that the petitioner has chosen not to divulge the other partners in the Company. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Corporation is very well aware of the names of other partners in the Company, each and every partner of a partnership firm cannot be arrayed as accused unless such a partner had any role in the commission of the offence alleged against the partnership firm. The non-inclusion of other partners of the firm in the criminal prosecution cannot be a valid ground for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner, who was allegedly at the helms of the affairs of the partnership firm. 13. It is alleged that the service of notice was not effected properly by the Corporation on the petitioner as contemplated under Section 63 of Cr.P.C. Whether proper service of notice was there or not will have to be gone into during the course of adjudication of the matter before the trial Court. 14. When there is specific allegation that the partnership firm in which the petitioner is one of the partners has violated the provisions of City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and the petitioner had been allegedly at the helms of the affairs of the partnership firm, there is no flaw in the process issued by XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ripon Buildings, Chennai 600 003, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., as against the petitioner. Therefore, these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed and the same are dismissed.