JAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Jagan Lal against the order dated 18. 3. 1996 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 27 (B), 27 (D), and 28 (A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioner and against the order dated 12. 8. 1999 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in criminal case No. 22/96.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that the Drug Inspector, Udaipur filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur on 2. 3. 1996 alleging inter alia therein that M/s. Cotton Product of India, Udaipur is a partnership firm and Raj Kumar Lodha, Jagan Lal Lodha and Chhaganlal Jain are its partners. The said firm is doing the business of medicines in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur took cognizance for the aforesaid offences on 18. 3. 1996 and summoned the accused persons including the present petitioner. The present petitioner filed an application under Sec. 34 of the Act before the learned Court below on the ground that he being the sleeping partner of the firm is not directly responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and, therefore, he cannot be proceeded with in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the act. So, the proceedings against him may be dropped but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur by his impugned order dated 12. 8. 1999 disallowed the application. Hence, this petition.

(3.) IN the instant case, petitioner is being prosecuted as partner of the firm M/s. Cotton Product of INdia, Udaipur with the aid of Section 34 (1) of the act which reads as under:- " 34 (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who 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 and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purpose of this (a) "company" means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. "