TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 11-3-1981 - BAHARUL ISLAM., O. CHINNAPPA REDDY For the Appellant : N. Nettar For the Respondent : A.K. Sen, S.K. Bisaria and V.P. Gupta JUDGMENT This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Karnataka. The three respondents being the partners of the firm, M/s. Mafatlal and Co., and the firm itself were charged for offences under s. 18(c), 18(a)(ii) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, read with s. 27(a)(ii), 27(a)(i) and s. 28 of the Drugs Control Act (hereinafter called " the Act "). The defence was a plea of "Not Guilty". The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found respondents Nos. 1 and 3, that is, one of the partners and the firm,guilty under s. 18(a)(ii) and s. 18(c) of the Drugs an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other particulars of the person from whom the drugs were claimed to have been acquired as M/s. Mangilal Jayantilal Company, 65 Princess Street, Second Floor, Bombay, which name and address, according to the prosecution, were fictitious. P-3, the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Bombay North Circle, has deposed that he got it verified by his Inspector who submitted a report that the above name and address were fictitious. But the Inspector has not been examined, nor his report proved. Obviously, therefore, the defence version remained unrebutted and violation of s. 18A remained unestablished. Regarding the acquittal of the 2nd respondent of the offence under s. 18(a)(ii) and s. 18(c), the learned counsel for the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a firm means a partner in the firm." It is seen that the partner of a firm is also liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge 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. In the present case the second respondent was sought to be made liable on the ground that he along with the first respondent was in charge of the conduct of the business of the firm. Section 23C of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which was identically the same as s. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act came up for interpretation in Gird ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
