Drugs Act liability requires proof of control or consent, not mere partnership or directorship.

Liability under the Drugs Act, 1940 did not arise from mere status as a partner or director. Section 27 could extend to a company and to persons in charge of and responsible for its business, while Section 34 fastened liability on directors or similar officers only where the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. In the absence of evidence showing that the applicants controlled the business or that the alleged offence was attributable to their consent, connivance, or neglect, no charge could properly be framed against them and discharge should have been maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of evidence that the applicants were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, or that the alleged offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect, they could be held liable under Section 27 read with Section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1940.

Analysis: Liability under Section 27 extended not only to the actual seller and the principal on whose behalf the sub-standard drug was sold, but in the case of a company also to the company itself and to persons in charge of and responsible for its business. Section 34 further fastened liability on directors and similar officers only where the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or was attributable to their neglect. Mere status as a partner or director was therefore insufficient. Since the prosecution led no evidence showing that the applicants were in charge of, and responsible for, the business of the concern, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect, no charge could properly be framed against them.

Conclusion: The applicants could not be held liable on the basis of their alleged partnership or directorship alone, and the discharge ought to have been maintained.

---