A partner of a Firm is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the Firm if he was incharge 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 attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned.

This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C, has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 98 of 1977 (State v. J. K. Chopra and Others) under Section 18/27, Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C.

2. The Inspector of Drugs filed a criminal complaint against J. K. Chopra and eleven others in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur for their prosecution under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C. The applicant Smt. Renu Chopra is daughter of Sri J. K. Chopra and is arrayed as accused No. 9 in the complaint. The material allegations in the complaint are that a Firm M/s Spa Pharma of which J. K. Chopra and his wife Smt. Gargi Chopra were partners was granted a licence on 31-5-1965 to manufacture Drugs. Smt. Gargi Chopra (accused) also worked as Analytical Chemist in the said Firm. On 14-9-1971 accused J. K. Chopra moved an application before the Assistant Controller of Drugs U. P. for granting approval to Smt. Gargi Chopra as manufacturing chemist. About 50 drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s Spa Pharma were reported to be not of prescribed standard. Apprehending action, the partners of the Firm M/s Spa Pharma sold the same to Sri Gajanan Goyal on 17-7-1973. J. K. Chopra and V. K. Seth constituted another Firm in the name and style of M/s B. Jay Pharma in 1972 and an application was given on 30-3-1973 for grant of licence to manufacture drugs. The accused Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Controller of Drugs and accused R. K. Arora Inspector of Drugs knowing fully well that accused J. K. Chopra was earlier running the Firm Spa Pharma, the drugs manufactured by which had been found to be substandard, made a recom mendation for grant of licence to the Firm B. Jay Pharma. Manufacturing licence was in fact granted in favour of the aforesaid Firm on 11-5-1973 and Smt. Gargi Chopra was shown as manufacturing chemist in the licence. Another firm by the name of M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) was also constituted at Kanpur of which the applicant Renu Chopra daughter of J. K. Chopra aforesaid and Smt. Pushpa Seth wife of B. K. Seth were partners. This Firm started selling drugs manufactured by M/s B. Jay Pharma. The case of the prosecution further is that Firm M/s B. Jay (Sales) sold Dextrose Injections and some other drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma to L. L. R. Hospital Kanpur on 9-4-1974. These drugs were given to the patients in the Hospital and several of them died between 11-4-1974 to 14-4-74. Sample of the drugs sold by the Firm B. J. Pharma (Sales) was collected from the Hospital and was sent for analysis to Government Analyst Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta who reported the same to be adulterated. Thereafter, a com plaint was filed against twelve persons in cluding Dr. Niranjan Prasad the then Assis tant Controller of Drugs U. P. and Sri R. K. Arora the then Inspector of Drugs Kanpur.

3. It is well-settled that proceedings of a criminal case can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. if the allegations made in the F. I. R. or the com plaint do not disclose commission of an offence. At this stage the court is not con cerned with the correctness of the allega tions made and has to proceed on the basis that the same are correct. The allegations in the complaint show that the

applicant was a partner of the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) which sold some drugs manufac tured by the Firms M/s B. Jay Pharma to L. L. R. Hospital, Kanpur on 9-4-1974 and that number of patients died on account of the fact that they were administering the aforesaid drugs. The sample of the drugs sold by the applicants Firm to the Hospital was sent for analysis to the Government Analysts, Central Drugs Laboratory, Cal cutta and a portion of his report is reproduced below:

Injection of Dextrose I. P. B. No. 636- Sub standard/presence of fibre like material visible with unaided eye in ordinary day light. Pyregens present, phenol present.

Water for Injec