1981 (3) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d s. 28 of the Drugs Control Act (hereinafter called " the Act "). The defence was a plea of "Not Guilty". The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found respondents Nos. 1 and 3, that is, one of the partners and the firm,guilty under s. 18(a)(ii) and s. 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced respondent No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under s. 18(a)(ii) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and sentenced respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, under s. 18(c), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of these two offences as the Magistrate found that it was respondent No. 1 and not respondent Nor 2 who ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examined, nor his report proved. Obviously, therefore, the defence version remained unrebutted and violation of s. 18A remained unestablished. Regarding the acquittal of the 2nd respondent of the offence under s. 18(a)(ii) and s. 18(c), the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that under s. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act the firm as well as its partners were liable to be convicted. Section 34 may be extracted here: "S. 34. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who I at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble on the ground that he along with the first respondent was in charge of the conduct of the business of the firm. Section 23C of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which was identically the same as s. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act came up for interpretation in Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. N. Mehta [1971] 3 SCR 748; AIR 1971 SC 2162, and it was observed as follows (p. 2163 of AIR): " What then does the expression 'a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of a company mean'? it will be noticed that the word 'company' includes a firm or other association and the same test must apply to a director-in-charge and a partner of a firm in-charge of a business. It seems to us that in the context a person 'in-char....