JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them by virtue of complaint petition tiled by the Labour Superintendent, Deoghar (respondent No.2). as contained in .Ai1nexure-6. on the basis of which, T.R. Case No. 867 of 1997 was instituted against the accused persons. and cognizance was taken under Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the 'Ad') by order dated 21.4.1997, as contained in Annexure 8. 3. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioner company, namely. Mis Metrograph Company Private Ltd. has been made the main accused. The petitioner No.2 has been made accused being the Managing Director of the said Company. As regards petitioner Nos. 3. to 6. who have also been arrayed as accused in this case. it is no where mentioned in the complaint as to under what capacity they have been made accused. It further appears from the complaint petition contained in Annexure-6. that it is no where mentioned therein that the accused per- sons had engaged employees in 'Scheduled Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and thereby they had violated the various pro'1sions of the Act. The complaint petition only speaks that the accused persons were not maiJ;1taining certain registers and records and thereby, they had violated the provisions of Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules 21(4), 22. 25(2) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules. 1950. It appears that on the basis of the said complaint petition; cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Deoghar in T.R. No. 86'7 of 1997 by order dated 21.4.1997, as contained in Annexure-8 and the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for further process in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the in1pugned action taken by the respondent No.2 is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as it is no where mentioned in the entire complaint petition whether the employers were engaging employees in any 'Schedule Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the in1pugned action taken by the respondent No.2 is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as it is no where mentioned in the entire complaint petition whether the employers were engaging employees in any 'Schedule Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It has also been submitted that even the accused/petitioner No.2 has been arrayed being the Managing director of the Company but it is not stated that under. what capacity, the others petitioners have been made accused, though they were the Directors in the Company. This apart, it is no where mentioned that the petitioner . Nos. 2 to 6 were either in charge of or were responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. Learned counsel further submitted that in absence of necessary details. cognizance could not be taken by the Court below. 5. This apart, learned counsel has also submitted that on the alleged date of inspection. the Company was not at all in existence, inasmuch as the Company was allegedly inspected on 5.2.1997, as is apparent from the complaint petition itself. but as a matter of fact the factory was closed on 2.9.1987 itself and the concerned authorities were informed about the closure of the factory. However, I am of the considered view that this plea cannot be taken at this stage. as it was for the petitioners to bring this fact to the notice of the Court below. The impugned order of cognizance cannot be challenged, on a question of fact which was not available before the Court at the time of taking cognizance. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the petitioners. have violated the provisions of the Act and the prime facie offence is made out against them under Section 18 of the Act and Rules 21(4). 22, 25(2) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, •1950. as alleged in the complaint petition due to non-maintaining and non-keeping the various registers and records. Learned counsel for the State, accordingly. submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding and the same cannot be interfered with at this' stage in the writ jurisdiction. 7. 22, 25(2) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, •1950. as alleged in the complaint petition due to non-maintaining and non-keeping the various registers and records. Learned counsel for the State, accordingly. submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding and the same cannot be interfered with at this' stage in the writ jurisdiction. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the records, I find that the accused petitioners herein are the Company and its Managing Director. The petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 have not been described in the complaint petition as to under what capacity they have been made accused in this case, though they were the Directors. as stated in the writ petition itself. Section 22-C of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 reads as follows :- "22-C. Offences by companies.-(l) If the person committing any offence under this Act is a company. every person who at the time the offence 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 offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: * * * * * * * *,. (emphasis supplied) 8. In the case of Central Bank of India v. Asian Global Limited & Ors.. as reported in (2010) II SCC 203, the question has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while deciding the vicarious liability of the Directors of the Company under the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the said decision, it has been held that for launching prosecution against the Directors of the Company, there had to be a specific allegation in complaint in regard to the part played by them in transaction in question. The allegations have to be clear and unambiguous, showing that the Directors were in charge of and responsible for business of company. In the said case, as no material had been disclosed in the complaint to make out the case that they had been in-charge of the affairs of the company and were responsible for its action, the complaint against Directors was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 9. In the present case also. In the said case, as no material had been disclosed in the complaint to make out the case that they had been in-charge of the affairs of the company and were responsible for its action, the complaint against Directors was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 9. In the present case also. I find that Section 22-C of the Minimum Wages Act clearly lays down that in case of a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to. the company for conduct of the business of the company, can only be deemed to be guilty. Accordingly. it is manifest that these facts had to be specifically alleged in the complaint petition 'and in absence thereof. in my considered view, no action can be continued against them. The present case is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. of India in the case of Central Bank of India (supra). 10. There is yet another infirmity in the complaint. It is no where mentioned in the entire complaint petition. whether the employers were engaging employees in any 'Schedule Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Section 18 of the Act casts the liability upon the 'Employer' to maintain 'certain registers and records. The term 'Employer' has been defined u/s 2(e) of the Act to mean any person who employs, whether' directly or through another person, one or more employees in any 'Scheduled Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act. Again, 'Scheduled Employment' has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. to mean an employment specified in the Schedule (of the Act). As such. this fact is also required to be specifically stated in the complaint that the employers were engaging employees in any 'Schedule Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act and in absence of any such statement. in my considered view. no action can be continued against the accused making presumptions in favour of the complainant and in absence of the accused. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons. in my considered view. no action can be continued against the accused making presumptions in favour of the complainant and in absence of the accused. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons. I find and hold that the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed. 12. Accordingly. the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in T.R. Case No. 867 of 1997. instituted on the ba~1s of the complaint petition filed by respondent No.2. as contained in Annexure-G. as also the order taking cognizance as contained in Annexure 8. passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Deoghar. arc. hereby. quashed. This writ petition is. accordingly. allowed. Petition allowed.