Judgment This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C-III-57 of 2013 including the order dated 22.02.2013 whereby and whereunder, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, 2000, against the petitioner and others. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Reliance Fresh Limited, who does have several outlets in the market area of Ranchi and have been doing business in each of its outlet, without there being any license granted under Rule 98 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Rule, though as per the Rules, the Company does require to have license for each of the outlets for running business. 3. According to Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, the Company does not require to have license for each of the outlets but presently he will not be going into the matter, rather order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner, who has been described as Managing Director, is being prosecuted, without there being any allegation of being responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affair of the Company. 4. In this respect, it was submitted that this petitioner never happened to be the Managing Director of the Company of the Reliance Fresh Limited, rather the petitioner happens to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Reliance Industries Limited, but since this fact is being disputed by the counsel appearing for the other side, presently he would not be taking this point that the petitioner never happens to be the Director of the Reliance Fresh Limited, but assuming that the petitioner is the Director of the Company, still he is not liable to be prosecuted in absence of any allegation that the petitioner was responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the company and only the person responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affair can be prosecuted in terms of the provision, as contained in explanation 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, which provision is similar to the provision as contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. 5. Having regard to that provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held that the Director of the Company can be prosecuted for the offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act, only when allegation is there that the Director is responsible for or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the company. 6. In the context of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in a case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 331, holding therein that unless there has been allegation that the Director was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company, he cannot be prosecuted. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that order taking cognizance dated 22.02.2013 is fit to be quashed. 7. As against this, Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, by referring to provision as contained in Section 48 of the Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, particularly the explanation to it, submits that every person i.e. Director of the Company, Manager or Secretary of the Company or firm or In-charge of the firm or the Company, can be held responsible for the commission of the offence under this Act. The said provision never does indicate that only the person, who is responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day business of the Company can be prosecuted. 8. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 48 of the said Act, Hindi text of which reads as follows:- “43. Penalty. - Aisa Koi bhi Vyakti jo es Adhiniyam ya eske adhin jari kye gaye nyemo, oop-vidhiyo ya, adesho key kishi upbandh ka ullhangan karega, wah ek varse tak ke karavash ya 1,000 rupaye tak key jurmana se ya dono se dandaneey hoga; Parantoo nyayalay ke faisle me abhilikhit kiye ja sakne wale paryapt pratikool karan nahi rahne par, aisa karaavas ek mahine se kam ya jurmana 500 rupaye se kam kaa nahi hoga. (2) Yadi koyee vyakti es dhara ke adhin doshi sidh tharaya jane ke baad punah es adniniyam, niymo or oopvidhiyo ke adhin doshi siddh tharaya jaye, to wah dooshra aur harek anuvarti aparadh ke liye do varsh tak kay karavash aur 2,000 rupayee tak ke jurmana se dandaneey hoga: Parantoo nyayalay ke faisley me abhilikhit kiye jane saknay wale virodh aur paryapat pratikool karan nahi rahne par, aisa karavas teen mahine se kam ka aur jurmana 1000 rupayee se kam ka nahi hoga. Spastikaran (1) Yadi es adhiniyam ya eske adhin banaye gaye niyamo ya oopniyamo ka ullaghan karne wala vyakti koi kampani ho to kampani ke nirdeshak, prabhandak ya sachiv sahit kampany ya fairm ka prabhari ya kampani ya fairm ke sanchlan ke liye uttardayee harek vyakti es ullaghan ka doshi hoga aur tadnushar uskay virudh karvyaee kiye jane aur dandit kiye jane ka bhagi hoga (2) “Kampani” se abhipret hai koie nigmeet nikay aur esme koie fairm ya viyaktiyon ka anya sangam bhi shamil hai, aur (3) fairm ke sambandh may “nideshak” say abhipret hai (aur esmay shamil hai) fairm ka bhagidar. In English text, the said provision reads as follows:- “43. Any person who contravenes any provision of the Act or any rule or bye-laws or order issued thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with a fine which may extend to Rs.1,000 or both. Provided that in absence of adequate reason to the contrary to be rerecorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be for a term of less than one month and a fine not less than a sum of Rs.500. Sub-section (2).-If any person is convicted under this section and is again convicted under the Act, Rules or Bye-laws then he shall be punishable for the second and every subsequent offence with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine of Rs.2000. Provided that in absence of adequate reason to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall be for a term less than three months and a fine of Rs.1000. Provided that in absence of adequate reason to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall be for a term less than three months and a fine of Rs.1000. Explanation-(1) If a person contravening any provision of the Act, Rules or Bye-laws thereunder, is a company, every person incharge of, and responsible to the company or firm for conduct of the business of the company or the firm including the Director, Manager or Secretary of the Company or firm shall be guilty for the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (2) 'Company' means any body, corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (3) 'Director' in relation to a firm, means and includes a partner of the firm. 9. According to Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Opp. Party, Hindi text of the explanation to Section 48, does stipulate that every person of the Company whether it is Director, Manager or Secretary is becomes responsible if the provision of the Act or Rules is contravened. But on reading of the said provision, both the Hindi and English text, one would hardly find any difference in the purports of the said provision, rather meaning of the provision is the same, that is to say that the Managing Director of the Company, Manager or Secretary, whoever is responsible for day-to-day affairs, would be responsible for commission of the offence. Therefore, the proposition advanced on behalf of Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel is not acceptable that every person i.e. Director, Manager and Sachiv of the Company would be responsible, if any of the provision of the Act or Rule is violated, rather what comes out from its reading is that only person either Director, Manager or Secretary, whoever is responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company, would be liable to be prosecuted. 10. Here in the instant case, no allegation whatsoever is there in the complaint that the petitioner was responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affair of the Company. 11. In that view of the matter, any prosecution against the petitioner would be bad. 12. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C-III-57 of 2013 including the order dated 22.02.2013, is hereby quashed so far this petitioner is concerned.