SHANTABAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 (For short 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 5303/91 with respect to applicants-accused No. 6 Shantabai and accused No. 7 Praveen.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the applicants accused No. 6 Shantabai and accused No. 2 Praveen and accused No. 5 Sharanappa are partners of accused No. 4 M/s. Mahendra Enterprises, a firm, engaged in the business of sale of varieties of drugs. Accused No. 2 and 3 Sewamal and Jinsibai who are partners of accused No. 1 M/s. Sangeeta Formaceuticals, conduct the business of formulation of different varities of drugs under licence No. 28/14/81 issued by the Controller of Food and Drugs, Bhopal. They also manufactured capsule Sangowit. On 31-10-84 Drugs Inspector drew sample of sangowit capsule, batch No. HB 8304 from the shop of accused No. 4, the firm M/s. Mahendra Enterprises, Latur from accused No. 5. The sample was found sub-standard by Drug analyst. After investigation, the Drugs Inspector, Indore filed complaint for offences punishable under Sections 18(A)(F) and 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (For short 'the Act') against the applicants and other accused. The learned Magistrate registered the complaint (Cr.C. No. 5303/91) and issued summons to the accused.

(3.) The applicants-accused Nos. 6 and 7 made an application to the trial Court for quashing the proceedings against them as they were not incharge of and were not responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, therefore, they could be prosecuted in view of Section 34 of the Act. This application was not decided by the trial Court, therefore, they moved an application u/S. 482 of the Code (MCRC No. 233/94) wherein the Magistrate was directed to dispose of the application of the applicants within one month. Thereafter the learned trial Judge heard arguments on the application and passed impugned order and dismissed the same vide order dated 15-11-95 holding that the fact, whether the applicants were not managing partners of the firm and were sleeping partners, can be decided after recording evidence and directed the proceedings to continue against them. The applicants have challenged this order in this petition.