JUDGMENT : The proceedings are in the nature of application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking following reliefs. (1) Quash and set aside the order dated 5/8/1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in Criminal Case No.103/1995 and so also set aside the Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995 against applicants pending on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate. (2) Grant stay to the further proceedings as against applicants in the Criminal Case No.103/1995 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. (3) …................... (4).......................... 2. I heard Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, learned advocate for applicant nos. 1 to 3. He has submitted that he has instructions not to press application for and on behalf of applicant no.4. I also heard Shri V.P.Gangane, learned A.P.P. for Staten-on-applicant. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the complaint as filed against the present applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law, therefore this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should exercise its powers for quashing the complaint filed on behalf of the Drugs Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State Amravati qua applicants. He relied on a reported case decided by this Court in the matter of Shri Ramprakash Gulati and another vs. State at the instance of S.B.Ghotkar, 2010 ALL MR(Cri)493 to buttress his submission for quashment of complaint since it lacks in respect of the pleadings on material aspect. He also submits that in fact the present applicants were the applicants in the reported case (cited supra), however the said case was filed at Yavatmal while the present case is filed at Amravati. 4. Shri Wajir Mohammad, was appointed as an Inspector, under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein after called as ' the Act' for the sake of brevity). Section 32 of the Act states that, no prosecution shall be launched except by the Inspector or by the Gazetted Officers of the Central or the State Governments authroised in writing in this behalf by the Central of State Governments by general or specific orders made in this behalf by the Governments. According to Shri Wazir Mohammad he was authorised to initiate the proceedings and consequently he filed a complaint. The complaint which was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995. According to Shri Wazir Mohammad he was authorised to initiate the proceedings and consequently he filed a complaint. The complaint which was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995. As per the complaint, the present applicants alongwith other accused were charged under Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and rules made therein. 5. According to the complainant, the complainant received report of the chloramphenicol eye ointment N.F.I.1% W/W( herein after referred as 'the said eye ointment' for the sake of brevity) which was declared to be not of standard quality from Shri A.G.Saoji and R.B.Joshi, the then Drug Inspectors, Amravati on 27/5/1994. 6. The complaint was filed against six accused persons. As per the complainant, the averments made in the complaint accused nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of the accused no.4 i.e. M/s Jyoti Capsules, situated at 123/37, Suregh Baugh, Kanpur 208012. The present applicants are accused nos. 1 to 3 in the said criminal complaint. 7. As per the complaint, M/s Jyoti Capsule (accused no.4) holds a manufacturing licence in Form 28 bearing No.6/SC/P of 1989 to manufacture the said eye ointment and other drugs. 8. Accused no.5 Ramesh Chandra Malik and accused no.6 Sarita Bhatnagar are the manufacturing chemist and analytical chemist respectively of accused no.4 M/s Jyoti Capsule. As per the averments, accused no.6 analysed the drugs for accused no.4. 9. According to complainant, Shri R.B.Joshi, the then Food Inspector on 31/5/1993 visited Isolation Hospital, Badnera Road, Amravati and drawn sample of the said ointment, batch No.JC23195 having manufactured dated 21/1/1993 which was to expire on 29/7/1994, manufactured by accused no.4 from Dr. S.N.Bung, Chief of Isolation Hospital which is run and manage by Municipal Corporation, Amravati. The sample was drawn and seized after following the procedures as laid down under the Act and Rules made thereunder. 10. Shri Joshi, then sent one seized portion of the same to Government Analyst, Bombay on 2/6/1993. As per the report dated 21/1/1994 by the Government Analyst it was found that the sample was not of standard quality. The sample was drawn and seized after following the procedures as laid down under the Act and Rules made thereunder. 10. Shri Joshi, then sent one seized portion of the same to Government Analyst, Bombay on 2/6/1993. As per the report dated 21/1/1994 by the Government Analyst it was found that the sample was not of standard quality. The reason as quoted in the sample is as under: “Sample does not comply with I.P.test for sterility” After receipt of the said report, Drug Inspector Shri R.B.Joshi sent copy of the test report to Dr.S.N.Bung of Isolation Hospital, Amravati on 7/1/1994 and also he was asked to disclose the name and address of the firm from which the said hospital acquired drug in question. In response to said on 21/1/1994, the Isolation Hospital, Amravati informed that the drug was supplied to them from Municipal Corporation, Amravati. Further inquiry was made with the Municipal Corporation, Amravati to disclose the source in respect of the acquiring the said drug with a copy of purchase bill. The Municipal Corporation, Amravati informed that the drug was purchased from M/s Saboo Medical situated at Jawahar Gaglani Market, Amravati vide bill no.10519 dated 31/5/1993. The medical store of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati was also inspected by other drug Inspector Shri A.G. Saoji who also drew the sample of the Drug manufactured by accused no.4. The said sample was also sent to Government Analyst on 27/4/1993. Government Analyst vide report dated 20/4/1994 also informed that the sample does not comply with the I.P.test. Shri A.G.Saoji thereafter sent the copy of the report to Shri A.K.Asolkar, incharge of Medical Store, Municipal Corporation, Amravati and inquired from him to disclose the name and address of the firm from where the drug was acquired. The response from him was also that the drug was purchased from M/S Saboo Medical, Amravati. 11. Subsequently, Shri R.B.Joshi, the then Durg Inspector sent copy of the report of the Government Analyst alongwith a sealed part of sample to M/s Saboo Medical Amravati as required under Section 23(4)(iii) and Section 25(2) of the Act. Also the report was sent to accused no.4 M/s Jyoti Capsule, Kanpur by registered post A/D lettered dated 11/3/1994. Similarly, Shri R.B. Joshi also sent a report of the Government Analyst to accused no.4 under the letter registered post A/D. 12. Also the report was sent to accused no.4 M/s Jyoti Capsule, Kanpur by registered post A/D lettered dated 11/3/1994. Similarly, Shri R.B. Joshi also sent a report of the Government Analyst to accused no.4 under the letter registered post A/D. 12. M/s Saboo Medical, Amravati informed vide its communication dated 2/4/1994, that it has purchased drug from M/s Bombay Drug House, Amravati. Thereafter the premises of M/s Bombay Drug House, Amravati was also visited and it was asked to disclose the name and address of the firm from whom it acquired the drug in question. M/s Bombay Drug House, Amravati vide letter dated 2/4/1994 informed that it has purchased the drug from M/s Kamini Agency Chira Bazar, Bombay. The inquiry was made by the Drug Inspector from M/s Kamini Agency, Bombay. During the inquiry, it was revealed that said drug in question was purchased from Jyoti Capsule, Kanpur on 17/2/1993. 13. On 27/8/1994, complainant paid visit to the premises of accused no.4 Jyoti Capsule, Amravati and at the time of his visit accused no.5 Shri Ramesh Chandra Malik was present. He produced xerox copies of the certain documents. With the aforesaid pleadings the complaint was lodged. 14. The necessary averments in so far as present applicants are concern are made in para 25 of the complaint. The said is reproduce herein below: “That the Section 18(a)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder state that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or well or stock or distributed any drugs (or cosmetics) which is not of standard quality.” Beside the aforesaid paragraph the complaint is totally silent in respect of the role of the present applicants. 15. It is not in dispute that the applicants are the directors of accused no.4, however as per the scheme of the Act merely because a person is a director that by itself is not sufficient to bring him within the clutches of the Act, if the said director is not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. In the complaint specific averments are made in respect of Shri Ramesh Chandra Malik, accused no.5 who is the manufacturing chemist and accused no.6 Smt.Sarita Bhatnagar, who is Analytical Chemist and their roles. However, at the same time the complaint is totally silent in respect of the role of the present applicants. In the complaint specific averments are made in respect of Shri Ramesh Chandra Malik, accused no.5 who is the manufacturing chemist and accused no.6 Smt.Sarita Bhatnagar, who is Analytical Chemist and their roles. However, at the same time the complaint is totally silent in respect of the role of the present applicants. Section 34 of the Act deals with the offences by companies. The Section 34 of the Act is reproduced herein as under: “Offences by companies: (1) Where as offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as sell as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Not withstanding anything contained in subsection (1), 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 negligent on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, 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 purpose of this Section(a) “company” means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.” 16. The reading of sub-Section 2 of Section 34 of the Act shows that 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, 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. 17. 17. Thus, sub-Section 2 of Section 34 of the Act clearly mandates that if the director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company is shown to be an accused in the complaint, then it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to show that the offence is committed with the consent or connivance. Merely because that a person is director is not self sufficient to establish that the offence is committed with his consent or connivance in the absence of basic pleading in that behalf. In absence of such, merely because the complaint is filed against the directors in my view the directors are not require to face gamut of the prosecution at the behest of the complainant. 18. The reported case of Shri Ramprakash Gulati and another(cited supra) also is identical with the facts of the present case. Not only that, it is filed by the present applicant only when they face prosecution at Yavatmal. 19. I am in full agreement with the views expressed by this Court in the case (cited supra). 20. For the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the complaint as filed against the present applicants cannot stand to the scrutiny of the law since seeking prosecution against them in the light of the pleadings in complaint is abuse of process of law. That leads me to pass the following order. ORDER (I) The application is allowed. (II) The Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati for the offence under Sections 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules made thereunder is quashed and set aside qua applicant no.1 Shri Ramprakash Gulati S/o Shri A.N.Gulati, applicant no.2 Shri Kewal K.Gulati and applicant no.3 Rameshchandra Gulati only. (III) The complaint in so far as original accused no.4 M/s Jyoti Capsule, accused no.5 Shri Ramesh Chandra Malik and accused no.6 Smt.Sarita Bhatnagar (applicant no.4) shall continue and shall be disposed of by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute.