ORDER
B.D. Singh, J.
1. These seven cases have been filed by the same petitioners aeainst the same opposite party under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for auashins the cognizance taken against the petitioners under Section 28 (a) and Section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) The petitioners are partners of M/s. Dhanbad Transport Company. Different cases had to be filed because they related to the different accounting years. Since a common Question of law has arisen in all these seven cases they were made analogous and were put UP for hearing together. This ctmmon iudgment will govern all the seven cases.
2. The cases against the petitioners were initiated on the basis of complaints filed by the State of Bihar-Opposite party through Suresh Prasad Singh, Inspector under the Act, Copies of the complaint petitions have been filed as Annexure ‘2’ to the applications.
3. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the orders of the Magistrate taking cognizance against them on the ground that the com-1 plaints do not disclose the essential elements that any of the petitioners was in-charge of the Company and they were made responsible to act under Sections 28 (a) and 29 of the Act. He drew my attention to the provision contained under Section 29 () of the Act which reads as:
29 (a). If the person committing an 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 business of the company, as well as the company, shall, be deemed to be suiltv of the offence 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 offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
He also referred to Section 10 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act X of 1950) which is in Pari materia with the provision contained under Section 29 of the Act. He submitted that unless those facts making the petitioners responsible are specifically alleged in the complaint no cognizance could have been taken. In order to substantiate his contention he relied upon a iudgment of this Court in Chhangi Ram Agarwalla v. State of Bihar (1970) Pat LJR 234. In that case also, learned Counsel urged, M. P. Verma. J.. was dealing with the case of partners of a firm vis-a-vis Section 10 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act. Therein his Lordship observed that by merely giving the names of the partners of the firm, a criminal proceeding for the violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot proceed: the complainant must show that a certain partner was the managing partner or manager or entrusted with the business of the firm and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of business: if that description is missing from the complaint then all the partners cannot be proceeded against for any such violation of the Rules. His Lordship, in the absence of those materials in the complaint, auashed the order taking cognizance.
4. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioners is well founded. The impugned order in the various cases cannot bp sustained. In the result, all the seven applications are allowed and the orders passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners and conseauent order or orders passed on the said cognizance are quashed.