JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - Applicants 1 to 4 are partners of Messrs Harrison Laboratories Mercantile Building, Hospital Boad, Kanpur. A report against them was submitted to the Additional Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur on August 24, 1977 by the Inspector of Drugs, U.P. at Kanpur. It was stated in the said report that the applicants 1 to 4 are partners in the firm aforesaid and they have sold sub-standard and adulterated glucose injections to Messrs Vishwash Medical Centre, Purana Bazar, Philaur, Punjab. The report further disclosed that the sample of the said drugs was obtained by the Drugs Inspector at Philaur on September, 21, 1974 and a report in respect of the same was given by the Government Chemical Analyst on May 23, 1975. The complaint also disclosed that applicant No. 1, Krishan Lal Mehra was the Managing Partner of the firm Messrs Harrison Laboratories. 2. Some evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution in the court of Matropolitan Magistrate in criminal case No. 84 of 1977 which arose out of the said report. After recording such evidence the Magistrate framed a charge against the applicants for offence punishable under section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(iia) read with sections 17-B and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The applicants have preferred this revision against the order dated February 2, 1980 framing charges against them. In the first instance the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has invited my attention to Section 34 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act and has contended that the offence impugned against the applicants was one against a company as defined in the said section and the charge against the applicants could not be framed unless the requirements of Section 34 of the said Act were complied with. 3. 3. Now Section 34 of the Act is material for satisfactory disposal of this revision and it is quoted below : "34 Offence by companies (i) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the affence 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 he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i), 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, Secretary or other officer of the company, such director manager or secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation ; For the purposes of this Section (a) "company" means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and (b) "director" in relation to firm means a partner in the firm" 4. According to the prosecution itself M/s Harrison Laboratories is a partnership.firm. It would, therefore, be deemed to be a company for the purposes of the Section. It is not disputed that the four applicants are partners in the said firm. 5. The question, however, remains that the applicants could not be charged for having committed an offence under the Act unless it was prima facie proved that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and were incharge of the same. It has to be borne in mind that according to sub-section (1; of Section 34 of the Act in order to be criminally liable an accused is not only to be in charge of the business of the company but has also to be responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. It has to be borne in mind that according to sub-section (1; of Section 34 of the Act in order to be criminally liable an accused is not only to be in charge of the business of the company but has also to be responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. It is only when these two conditions are full filed that an offence under the Act can be said to have been prima facie proved against the accused. When the prosecution has succeeded in making out a prima facie case against an accused in accordance with the standard stated above that a criminal court would be justified in framing a charge against a person accused of an offence under the Act. 6. It has to be remembered that in case of a company the criminal liability which is sought to be fastened on a person under the Act is of a vicarious nature. A person accused in a case under the Act should not be unnecessarily harassed unless there is a prima facie evidence in the case against him to warrant a charge being framed against him. 7. Learned A.G.A. submitted that at this stage only charge has been framed against the applicants and evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 34 c f the Act will be led subsequently. According to his submission the revision was premature and the applicants should have waited until final orders were passed in this case before coming to this court either in appeal or revision have already pointed out above that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to satisfy the requirements of Section 34, at least prima facie, before an accused person is called upon to answer a charge framed against him. It would be giving a long rope to the prosecution to hold that criminal courts are justified in framing a charge against a person accused in a case although there is no prima facie evidence to warrant such action. This is evident on a bare perusal of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the drugs were sold by the firm to the dealer at Philaur on September 21, 1974 and the test by the Chemical Analyst was actually conducted on May 23, 1975. This is evident on a bare perusal of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the drugs were sold by the firm to the dealer at Philaur on September 21, 1974 and the test by the Chemical Analyst was actually conducted on May 23, 1975. It was urged by him that it is possible that on account of some leakage or other defect in dealing with the article some infirmity may have developed in the substance of the drug. In view of what have stated above do not think it necessary to record any finding on this submission. 9. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The charge framed in original case No. 84 of 1977 State v. Krishan Lal Mehra and others by the Metropolitan Magistrate on September 2, 1980 is hereby quashed and the applicants are discharged of the offence for which they are being prosecuted.