- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1018 of 2007 PRABHASH KUMAR BHARTIYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 11 17.3.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner under section 7 of the E. C. Act arising out of Korha P.S. Case No.24/07 pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Katihar. As per prosecution case a tractor loaded with 100 bags of Urea was seized. The driver produced two cash memos, one in the name of Surya Narain Sah and another in the name of Prakash Mahto. But the cash memos did not contain signature of the purchasers. The driver produced a Kachcha purja and disclosed that it was being carried by him for delivery to one Ganesh Chaudhary of Sema pur. It is alleged that stock register was not maintained up-to- date. On the aforesaid basis it is alleged that the petitioner being the licensee of Man Laxmi Krishak Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd., Tingachhiya, Katihar, would be responsible for the aforesaid violation. Mr.N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel submits that the prosecution is bad as petitioner cannot be proceeded in view of Section 10 of the E.C. Act. As per Section 10 of E.C.Act “If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of - 2 - business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” Learned counsel has relied upon a Division Bench order of this Court in case of Bijay Kumar Tebriwal vrs. the State of Bihar Cr.W.J.C.No.10/76 (disposed of on 1.12.1976). In the aforesaid case there was also violation of the provision of Bihar Vanaspati D. Licensing Order, 1967. The stand of the petitioner in the aforesaid case was that he was a working partner and he was not incharge of the business of the Company as such his prosecution is saved by Section 10 of the E.C.Act. Mrs. Anita Sinha. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the licensee of the aforesaid Co-operative Society and would be responsible for the alleged violation. The case is pending investigation and as such this Court does not want to interfere at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application after submission of the final report. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of . Anilkr.sinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)