JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.7.1989 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbaheda, whereby he issued process against 11 persons including the petitioner under sections 17(a)(f), 17(b)(d), 18(a)(i), 27(b)(i) & 27(c) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. Mr. Charan, pointing out that in the complaint it has not been stated that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, contends that the learned Magistrate has erred in issuing process against him. He cites the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 , State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal, AIR 1998 SC 2327 & M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 657 . 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not disputed that the petitioner-Narendra Singh is the director of the Company which had manufactured the drug, found to be adulterated, and therefore, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in issuing process against him. 4. I have considered the above arguments. The relevant facts of the case are that Shri Chandra Bhushan Gupta, Drug Inspector had taken sample of the Axiphone butalin tablets from the clinic of Dr. Hasan Dasani, which was manufactured by M/s. Kent Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. The sample was sent to the Drug Analyst who opined that the sample was adulterated with phenylbutazone and did not conform to I.P. Thereafter the Drug Inspector sent a copy of the report to the vendor as also to the manufacturer. The complaint was filed on 21.6.1989 on which the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the contents of the complaint. In the complaint it has no-where been stated that the petitioner in his capacity as Director of the manufacturing company was incharge and responsible for the conduct of its business. In the title, the name of the petitioner has been shown at S.No. 11 showing him as Director of M/s. Kent Pharmaceuticals Co. Pvt. Ltd. At para No. 12 it has been alleged that accused No. 9 to 11 had manufactured and sold the adulterated drug. There is not a whisper against the petitioner whose name stands at No. 11 in the complaint. Pvt. Ltd. At para No. 12 it has been alleged that accused No. 9 to 11 had manufactured and sold the adulterated drug. There is not a whisper against the petitioner whose name stands at No. 11 in the complaint. It is now well settled that without specific allegations in the complaint that the particular accused was incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business cognisance cannot be taken against him. 6. The case of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal (supra) is the direct authority on the point. That was also a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Apex Court has observed that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable. In that case also it was noticed by their lordships that except a bald statement that the accused were directors of the manufacturers, there was no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were incharge of the company and were also responsible for the conduct of its business. Reiterating the principle enunciated in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Rain Kishan (supra) their lordships quashed the proceedings against the accused persons. The authority applies on all fours to the instant case. 7. There being no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner that he was incharge of and also responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, the order issuing process against him is liable to be quashed. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances the prosecution against the petitioner was quashed by the Madras High Court in the case of Narendra Singh v. Union of India, (Crl. O.P. Nos. 12117 to 12120 of 1991) decided on 5.10.1994 . 9. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******