Judgment : Accused 4 and 5 in C.C.No.141 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai have filed this petition under Sec.438, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are: The respondent has filed a complaint against five persons out of whom the petitioners are accused 4 and 5 for offence under Sec.38 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: A-1 is a company. A-2 is the Managing Director. A-3 is the wholesale dealer. A-4 and A-5 are partners of A- 3. On 24. 1985, during inspection at Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, the complainant had found stock of VDRL Reagents manufactured by A-1. Investigation revealed that the drug was sold by A-3 to the hospital. As the drug was not labelled with details as required under Rule 96 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, the drug is deemed misbranded under Sec.17(b) of the Act. Further investigation revealed that A-1 have manufactured and sold the drug to A-3 and they are not licensed to manufacture the drug. On 19. 1989 the complainant seized the drug from Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, in the presence of witnesses. A-1 to A-5 have contravened Sec.18(a)(i) read with Sec.17(b) which is punishable under Sec.27(d) of the Act for having manufactured and sold a misbranded drug. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no allegations in the complaint, that at the time when the offence was committed, the petitioners were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and that they are not liable for the offence and the complaint regarding them is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. Sec.34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, relates to offences by companies. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. Sec.34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, relates to offences by companies. Sub-sec(1) of Sec.34 is relevant and it reads as follows: “Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge 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 Explanation to Sec.34, it is stated as follows: “For the purpose of this Section: (1) “company” means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals.” A conjoint reading of the above shows that the partner of the company would not be liable unless it is alleged and proved that particular partner was incharge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the offence was committed. No such allegations are made in this complaint. On this short ground the complaint regarding the petitioners is to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon Alfred Borg and Co. India (P) Ltd. and 13 others v. Antoi India (P) Ltd., 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 120. 6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.141 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai regarding these petitioners who are accused 4 and 5 in the said case, shall stand quashed.