ORDER A partner of a firm is also liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was incharge of, and was responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned, under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Following G.L. Gupta v. DN Mehta AIR 1971 SC 28 , the Apex Court held in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand and others AIR 1981 SC 872 that in the context, a person 'incharge' must mean the person should be in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company or firm. As one of the partners was in over all control of the day-to-day business of the firm and the other partner was not, the Apex Court held that the latter partner was not liable to be convicted merely because he had the right to participate in the business of the firm under the terms of the partnership deed. 2.ln N. Dandapani v. State of A.P. 2005 (1) ALT (Crl. )465 following the above precedent, it was held with reference to a complaint, where except the status of the petitioners before this Court, nothing was mentioned as to the primary ingredient as to whether they were in overall control of the day-to-day business of the firm and no other material was also adduced to show prima facie to that effect, that the petitioners are entitled to have the criminal proceedings against them quashed. 3. The said principle was reiterated in Chekka Venkata Chenna Kesava Sudheer v. Drugs Inspector2008 (1 )ALT (Crl.) 127 and it is needless to replicate any more precedents to the same effect. 4. The three petitioners herein, who are partners of M/s. Ganesh Medical Agencies, Tirupati, bank upon the above principle seeking to be absolved from further criminal proceedings in C.C. NO.547 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. The present petitioners are arrayed as accused 3 to 5 in the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector in respect of the contraventions of the Statute specified therein by M/s. Ganesh Medical Agencies. The present petitioners are arrayed as accused 3 to 5 in the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector in respect of the contraventions of the Statute specified therein by M/s. Ganesh Medical Agencies. The body of the complaint made absolutely no reference to the status of the petitioners vis-a-vis the day-to-day business of the firm and it was only the description in the cause title of the complaint that refers to the petitioners arrayed as accused 3 to 5 being so arrayed with reference to M/s. Ganesh Medical Agencies. The petitioners claim that it is the 2nd accused who is the active working partner incharge of, and responsible for, the day-today activities of the firm, looking after its business and that they are not active partners participating in the affairs of the business of the firm, but are only nominal partners or sleeping partners, unaware of any contraventions of the provisions of any Statute, by the firm. As there was no specific or even vague allegation against the petitioners of being responsible for or having participated in any offence, the petitioners contend that the criminal proceedings against them should be quashed and their contention as advanced by Sri P. Anand Seshu, their learned counsel, has to be accepted notwithstanding the opposition by Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, in the light of the uncontroverted facts and the undisputed legal position. The petitioners are, hence, entitled to succeed. 5. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.547 of 2004 on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly.