T KIRAN KUMAR Vs. DRUG INSPECTOR TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A partner of a firm is also liable to be convicted foran offence committed by the firm if he was incharge of, and was responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned, under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Following g. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta AIR 1971 SC 28, the apex Court held in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand and others MR 1981 SC 872 that in the context, a person 'incharge' must mean that the person should be in over all control of the day-to-day business of the company or firm. As one of the partners was in over all control of the day-to-day business of the firm and the other partner was not, the apex Court held that the latter partner was not liable to be convicted merely because he had the right to participate in the business of the firm under the terms of the partnership deed.

(2.) IN N. Dandapani v. State of A. P. 2005 (1)ALT (Crl.) 465 following the above precedent, it was held with reference to a complaint, where except the status of the petitioners before this Court, nothing was mentioned as to the primary ingredient as to whetherthey were in overall control of the day-to-day business of the firm and no other material was also adduced to show prima facie to that effect, that the petitioners are entitled to have the criminal proceedings against them quashed.

(3.) THE said principle was reiterated in chekka Venkata Chenna Kesava Sudheer v. Drugs Inspector 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 127 and it is needless to replicate any more precedents to the same effect.