LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus PRATAP CHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 200 STATE OF KARNATAKA v ' PRATAP CHAND & ORS. March 11, 1981 ( 0. CHINNAPPA R EDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ. ) Dmgs and Cosmetics Act 194G-Section 18A-Scope of-Information furni- shed under section 18A alleged to be fictitious-Report of Inspector not proved- ln.rpector not examined-Validity of report. Section 34-"person incharge"-Meaning of-Tests to he applied. All the three respondents (respondents nos. 1 and 2 partners and respondent No. 3, the firm) were prosecuted for the alleged· contravention of section I SA, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in that when asked by the Drugs Inspector to disclose the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom a cer- tain drug was acquired by them, they gave a fictitious address and that, there- fore, they were liable to be convicted under section J8(a) (ii) read with section 18(c) of the Act The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted respondent no. l (the partner in- charge of the business of the firm) and respondent no. 3 (the firm) but acquitted respondent no. 2 on the ground that it was respondent no. 1 who was incharge of the firm and sentenced them variously. E The High Court summarily dismissed the State's appeal against the acqittaJ F G H of respondent no. 2 and of all the respondents under section 18A. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Violation of the provisions of section J8A remained unestabli- shed and the defence version remained unrebutted. [202E] The Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration ~ombay , North Circle, deposed that the particulars given by the respondents as to the person (rom whom the drugs were purported to have been acquired were veri- fied by an Inspector, who in his report stated that the name and address given by the respondents were fictitious; but the Inspector has not been examined nor was his report proved. The defence version, therefore, remained unre- butted. (202 D-E) The second respondent was not liable to be convicted merely because he had the ri'ght to participate in the business of the firm under the terms of the partnership deed. The term "person incharge" refetred to in section 34 must mean that the person should be in overall control of the day to day business of the firm. A person may be a party to the policy being followed by a firm and yet not be incbarge of its business or a person may be incharge of a business but not in overall charge or may be incharge or only some part of the business. In short, a partner of a firm is liable to be convicted for an offence if he was in ) y ICARNATAKA V. PRATAP CHAND (Baharulls/arn, J.) 201 f and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its b t' cha!lle 0ed that the offence was committed with the consent or co~ 1.ness or irf it is prov 1 t 1 f nJVance o or 1185 attributable to any neg cc on t 1e part o the partner concerned. [204A-.B] G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta (1971] 3 S.C.R. 748 applied. A In the instant case respor.dent no. 2 was not in overall control of the busi- ness. It was respondent no. 1, who was in that position. [204 C) B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 364 or 1975. N. Nettar for the Appellant. A.K. Sen, S.K. Bisaria and V.P. Gupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL IsLAM, J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Karnataka. 2. The three respondents being the partners of the firm, M/s. l>fafatlal and Co., and the firm itself were charged for offences under ~ · Sections l 8(c), 18(a) (ii) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 27(a) (ii), 27(a) (i) and Section 28 of the Drugs Control Act, (hereinafter, the Act). The defence was a plea of "Not Guilty". The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found respondents 1. and 3, that is, one of the partners and the firm, guilty under Sec- 1100 18(a) (ii) and Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and 5entenced respondent No. I to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one ~ear under 'ection 18(a) (jj) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. m default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and ltlltenctd ~spondents 1 and 3 to pay a nne of Rs. l,OOO tach, Under section 18(c) in default to sutTer simple imprison- ment r ' . . d f th or three months. The respondent No. 2 was acquttte 0 ~two offences as the Mag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.