JUDGMENT:- 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. Mafatlal and Co., and the firm itself were charged for offences under Sections 18 (c), 18 (a) (ii) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Sections 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 S. 18. (a) (ii) and S. 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced respondent No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 18 (a) (ii) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonrnent for one month, and sentenced respondents 1 and 3 to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, under S. 18 (c), in default, to suffer imprisonment for 3 months. The respondent No. 2 was acquitted of these two offences as the Magistrate found that it was respondent No. 1 and not respondent No. 2 who was in charge of the business of the firm. All the respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 18A.

3. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka from the order of acquittal of respondent No. 2 of the offence under Ss. 18 (a) (ii) and 18 (c) and of all the respondents under Section 18A of the Act. The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal.

4. Section 18A of the Act requires that every person who has acquired drug or cosmetic, if required, shall disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the persons from whom the drug or cosmetic was acquired.

The respondents pleaded that they did disclose to the Drugs Inspector, the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom the drugs were acquired, as required by Section 18A of the Act and in support of their defence they rely on Exhibit P. 20, a letter dated 17-7-1971, addressed to the Drugs Controller. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has found that Exhibit P. 20, contained the name, address and 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.W. 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 Section 18A remained unestablished.

5. Regarding the acquittal of the second respondent of the offence under Section 18 (a) (ii) and Section 18 (c), the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that under Sec. 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act the firm, as well as its partners were liable to be convicted. Section 34 may be extracted here :-

"Section 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, secretar