JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Rama Nand Sharma has referred this application in revision against the order, dated 16th March, 1972, of Shri M. M. Sharan Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, allowing the appeal in part, by maintaining the conviction of the applicant under section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo nine month's rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the learned Magistrate. 2. It appears that the complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector against Ganpat Singh, said to be the proprietor of M/s Ganesh Medical Stores, Rama Nand Sharma, the applicant, said to be in-charge of Ganesh Medical Stores and Ganesh Medical Stores itself under section 27 of the Act for violating the provisions of Rule 65(3) of the Rules framed under the Act and for not complying with conditions Nos. 3 and 4 of the drugs licence in form 20 and condition No. 5 in form 21. The allegations were that the accused used to issues bogus cash memo to Central Government employees for the purpose of reimbursement, that the carbon copies of the said cash memo and the purchase records of the drugs sold were not produced, and that the same did not seem to have been maintained as required under the provisions of the Act and Rules 65 of the Rules framed under the Act. It was also stated in the complaint that Shri Hari Datt Sharma, the approved, qualified person, never worked with the said firm, that Rama Nand Sharma, the applicant, who was unapproved unqualified person under the Rules, went on selling drugs and signing the sale records, kept under Rule 65(3) of the Rules, without reporting to the licensing authority any change in the qualified staff in-charge. A charge was framed against Kama Nand Sharma alone, and the other accused mentioned in the complaint were not proceeded with. 3. Rama Nand Sharma, the applicant, denied the allegations made against him. His main defence was that he had no concern with this medical stores and he was merely a clerk in the said stores. In his statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, he attributed his false implication due to enmity. Virendra Singh Tyagi (D.W. 1) was examined in support of the defence. 4. His main defence was that he had no concern with this medical stores and he was merely a clerk in the said stores. In his statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, he attributed his false implication due to enmity. Virendra Singh Tyagi (D.W. 1) was examined in support of the defence. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P. Kamal, Inspector of Drugs (P.W. 1), Sunder Lal, Accountant, C.D.A, (P.W. 2), Munni Lal, (P.W. 3) Jagdish, (P.W. 4), Gajadhar (P.W. 5), Pyare Lal (P.W. 6), Kishan Lal (P.W. 7), Diwan Chand, (P W.8), Sipattar Singh, (P.W. 9), Phool Singh (P.W.10), Rajendra Nath) (P W. 11). Swaroop Singh (P.W.12) and Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 13) After the remand of the case to the learned Magistrate five more witnesses were examined. Some receipts (exts. 1 to 4) were also filed. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, and placing reliance upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the defence version, arrived at the findings that Rama Nand Sharma alone was the owner of this Drug Store, that Ganpat Singh, mentioned as accused No. 1 in the complaint, was in partnership with Rama Nand Sharma, and that Rama Nand Sharma used to deal with the business of selling drugs. The learned Magistrate accordingly recorded his conviction under section 27 of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Rules 65(3) and 18 of Chapter V and for not complying with the conditions of the licence, as required under Rule 65(3) of the Rules. 5. On appeal, the lower appellate court also arrived at the findings that Rama Nand Sharma was the owner of Ganesh Medical Stores, that he used to deal with the business of selling drugs and the issue of receipts and cash memos, that he failed to produce the record for inspection, that the receipts issued were all bogus, that the approved the qualified person, Hari Dutt Sharma, never worked with the applicant, that he himself was unapproved and unqualified, that he went on selling drugs and issuing cash memos and that he did not report about the change in the name of the qualified person within the specified period The conviction of the applicant was accordingly maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. 6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, Rama Nand Sharma, has strenuously urged before me that K S. Selat was the Inspector who had filed a complaint, on the basis of which the case had started, that the said Inspector not being examined to prove the complaint, as required, under section 32 of the Act, the complaint could not be proceeded with and that the conviction of the applicant was wrongly recorded. He has also urged that under section 34(1) of the Act, where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time of the offence, being 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. In the explanation added to this section, it is stated that for the purposes of this section company means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals. In view of the said provisions of law, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, it was essential that the company should also have been proceeded against, particularly when it was described as an accused in the complaint. 7. As indicated earlier, it appears that in support of the complaint, the statement of P. Kamal, Inspector of Drugs, was recorded, and not of Selat, the Inspector who has actually filed the complaint. As such, the complaint was not legally proved. A perusal of the charge framed by the learned Magistrate shows that it was only against Rama Nand Sharma, applicant, and not against the other two, namely, Ganpat Singh and M/s. Ganesh Medical Stores, who were also made accused in the complaint. These points were not at all pressed either before the learned Magistrate or before the lower appellate court, and they have been urged before me for the first time. 8. These points were not at all pressed either before the learned Magistrate or before the lower appellate court, and they have been urged before me for the first time. 8. It would thus appear that the case was not properly handled, and it is desirable in the interest of justice, be-caused the three accused mentioned in the complaint are alleged to have committed offence which are serious in nature and the public at large a-pears to have been defrauded, but were not proceeded against properly, that the case be remanded to the learned Magistrate to be tried de novo according to law after the complaint filed in the case being properly proved and the charges being framed against the three accused mentioned in it. 9. In the result, the case is remanded to the trial Magistrate to be tried de novo according to law and in the light of the observations made above. The record may be sent to the court concerned at the earliest.