BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) In this writ application the writ petitioners have challenged a notice being No. 41. T-ll-14(5035)/77 legal, dated 31/07/1981 and the complaint lodged before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta which is Annexures- 'C' and 'E' respectively to this petition.
(2.) This writ application was entertained by a learned single Judge of this Court in the year 1982 and at that point of time an interim order granting stay of all further proceedings of the criminal case was also passed. The said stay order is still continuing.
(3.) Mr. Talukder learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners draws attention of this Court to the complaint lodged before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and points out that in the said complaint, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have been described as Directors of the Company. But apart from the fact that they are mere Directors of the Company, no other allegations have been made stating that those petitioners were either in charge of the business of the Company or responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the said Company. Mr. Talukder thus contends that fact that those petitioners are Directors of the Company, will not make them liable for the offence alleged to have been committed by the Company under Section 85 (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In this connection Mr.Talukder relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court one in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. S. K. Agarwal & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2676 : 1998 (6) SCC 288 : 1998-II-LLJ-794, and the other in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ramkishan Rohtagi & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67 : 1983 (1) SCC 1. Mr. Talukder thus submits that the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of such a complaint, should be quashed so far the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned.;