https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280789 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. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 May 2019 16:07:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280789 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280789