Partner liability and drug disclosure obligations require proof of control or false nondisclosure, not mere partnership status.

Non-disclosure of the source of acquisition of drugs was not established where the accused supplied the seller's name, address and particulars, and the prosecution failed to prove that the supplier was fictitious. Partner liability under the deeming provision arose only if the partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business, or if the offence was committed with consent, connivance or neglect; mere partnership status or a contractual right to participate in management was insufficient. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged non-disclosure of the source of acquisition of drugs established a of the disclosure obligation; (ii) Whether a partner of a firm was liable for the offences committed by the firm merely because of the partnership relationship.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged non-disclosure of the source of acquisition of drugs established a violation of the disclosure obligation.

Analysis: The disclosure requirement was satisfied when the accused supplied the name, address and particulars of the person from whom the drugs were claimed to have been acquired. The prosecution assertion that the stated supplier was fictitious was not proved, as the inspector who allegedly verified the address was not examined and the report was not proved. The defence version therefore remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: No violation of the disclosure obligation was established.

Issue (ii): Whether a partner of a firm was liable for the offences committed by the firm merely because of the partnership relationship.

Analysis: Liability under the deeming provision attached only where the partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, or where the offence was committed with consent, connivance, or neglect. The governing principle required overall control of the day-to-day business, not merely a right to participate in management. On the evidence, one respondent and not the other had such control, and mere status as partner was insufficient to attract liability.

Conclusion: A partner was not liable merely by reason of partnership and could be convicted only on proof of being in charge and responsible for the business or of consent, connivance, or neglect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the acquittal of the concerned respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For partner liability under the deeming provision, the prosecution must prove that the partner was in overall control of the day-to-day business of the firm, or that the offence was committed with the partner's consent, connivance, or neglect; mere participation rights under the partnership deed are insufficient.

---