S.J.Hyder, J. - (1.) Applicants 1 to 4 are partners of Messrs Harrison Laboratories Mercantile Building, Hospital Boad, Kanpur. A report against them was submitted to the Additional Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur on August 24, 1977 by the Inspector of Drugs, U.P. at Kanpur. It was stated in the said report that the applicants 1 to 4 are partners in the firm aforesaid and they have sold sub-standard and adulterated glucose injections to Messrs Vishwash Medical Centre, Purana Bazar, Philaur, Punjab. The report further disclosed that the sample of the said drugs was obtained by the Drugs Inspector at Philaur on September, 21, 1974 and a report in respect of the same was given by the Government Chemical Analyst on May 23, 1975. The complaint also disclosed that applicant No. 1, Krishan Lal Mehra was the Managing Partner of the firm Messrs Harrison Laboratories.
(2.) Some evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution in the court of Matropolitan Magistrate in criminal case No. 84 of 1977 which arose out of the said report. After recording such evidence the Magistrate framed a charge against the applicants for offence punishable under section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(iia) read with sections 17-B and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The applicants have preferred this revision against the order dated February 2, 1980 framing charges against them. In the first instance the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has invited my attention to Section 34 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act and has contended that the offence impugned against the applicants was one against a company as defined in the said section and the charge against the applicants could not be framed unless the requirements of Section 34 of the said Act were complied with.
(3.) Now Section 34 of the Act is material for satisfactory disposal of this revision and it is quoted below : "34 Offence by companies (i) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the affence 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 he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i), 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 or secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation ; For the purposes of this Section (a) "company" means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and (b) "director" in relation to firm means a partner in the firm";