ORDER: This revision has been filed by A-4, the petitioner herein, against the dismissal order of discharge made by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 in Crl.M.P. No. 7991 of 2000 in C.C. No. 1758 of 1998. 2. The circumstances under which this revision has come to be filed is as follows: “(a) The respondent Senior Grade Drug Inspector filed a complaint against four persons for offences punishable under Secs. 33-EEA (c) and 33-EEC (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Sec. 33-1(b) and 33-1(i) (a) (ii) of the Act. (b) The averment in the complaint is that the Drug Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Sree Durga Pharmacy situated at plot No. 9, Sudha Nagar, Nethaji Colony, I Main Road, Velachery, and found the petitioner Raju, who was in charge of the firm, present and doing the business. The Drug Inspector along with independent witnesses conducted a search and inspection and found that the pharmacy was manufacturing ayurvedic medicine such as Durgatone liquid and Dhadhusudhi powder by filling, sealing and affixing the labels of M/s. Arya Durga Pharmacy, in contravention of the above said provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The articles were seized and an inventory was made in the presence of A-4 and a copy of the same was given to him. Samples of the said articles were drawn for analysis. (c) On investigation, the Drug Inspector came to know about the involvement of the other accused also in the said manufacture and sale. The details of the averments are mentioned in the complaint and it may not be necessary for me to go deep into the other details since the point taken in this revision is limited to the question as to who could be penalized when the sale is being effected by the firm.” 3. The petitioner filed a discharge petition on the ground that he cannot be tried for the offence as he is only a salesman. But the Magistrate declined to accept the contention and dismissed the application. It is against this order the present revision has been filed. 4. The petitioner filed a discharge petition on the ground that he cannot be tried for the offence as he is only a salesman. But the Magistrate declined to accept the contention and dismissed the application. It is against this order the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A-4 was only a salesman in the shop and he may not be punished, since Sec. 33(i) of the Act penalizes only the person who was responsible for having manufactured the articles for sale or for distribution and not the actual salesman. He bases his argument on the construction of the sentence beginning in Sec. 33(1) which reads as follows: “Who ever himself or by another person on his behalf- (1) Manufactures for sale or for distribution - etc.” 5. Thereby, the learned counsel would say that the words ‘who ever’ denote only the person who is responsible or who is behind the scene and does the manufacture through another person and he alone could be convicted and not the other person with whose help he manufactures. 6. I am afraid I am not able to agree with his contention since a reading of the entire sentence would mean the person who is behind the scene and is responsible for the manufacture and distribution of the articles by any other person as well as the person who actually sells or distributes or manufactures is also liable. In other words, the words ‘who ever’ connote that not only the person who is actually manufacturing or distributing be penalized but in addition, the person for whom the manufacture or sale is being done. In the present case, according to the complainant, A-4, the petitioner herein, was actually incharge of the business and as such, is certainly liable. 7. In addition to the above said provision, a reading of Sec. 34 of the Act would clearly indicate that the person in charge of the firm, who is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall also be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Sec. 34 of the Act reads as follows: “34. Sec. 34 of the Act reads as follows: “34. Offences by companies: (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was 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.” 8. In the present case, the complainant has clearly averred that A-4 was in charge of the business and samples were taken in front of him and a copy of the inventory was also supplied to him. Therefore, this provision further establishes that not only the person who is behind the scene and who is responsible for the manufacture or sale or distribution but also the person who actively takes part in the day to day affairs of the company, is also liable. A-4 being one such person cannot escape the clutches of law by stating that only the person for whom he was doing the business alone is responsible and that he is not responsible. I see no merits in this case. 9. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 4996 of 2001 is also dismissed. 10. Since the matter relates to the year 1998, I direct the Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the same as early as possible.