M.N.A. ARUMUGHA PERUMAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE, REP. BY M.G. RAGHURAMAN, DRUGS INSPECTOR, CHINGLEPUT RANGE, KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by accused 2, 3 and 5 in C.C. 95 of 1984 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput, to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) THE Respondent, viz, Drug Inspector, Chingleput Range, Kancheepuram, filed a complaint against the Petitioners and two others under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, on the allegation that A1, Messrs Arutnugam Surgical Cottons, manufactured surgeons absolvent cotton wools and the samples which were taken from the surgical stores of the Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital were found to be not of standard quality. Accused 2, 3 and 5 are sleeping partners and are the Petitioners herein. A4 is another partner and A6 is the manufacturing chemist. After giving notice the accused were prosecuted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners mainly contended that so far as the Petitioners are concerned, they are sleeping partners and even in the complaint it was not alleged that they were in charge of or were responsible for the conduct of the business as contemplated under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In the absence of allegation, the mere fact that they are partners is not sufficient to prosecute them for the offence complained of. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, 1911 Cri. LJ. 595 wherein the Supreme Court held:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Advocate stated that in view of the proviso to Section 34, it is for the accused to prove that the offence was committed without he knowledge or that they had exercised due are and diligence for the prevention of such offence and that, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.