Order : 1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1191/2021 {CNR No. RJCH020008502021} pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, Rajasthan, titled State of Rajasthan through Manoj Kumar Garwhal, Drugs Control Officer, Churu vs. M/s Shree Sai Medicos & Ors. The petitioner also prays for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2021, whereby the court below has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 18 (A)(1) , 18 (A)(IV) , 16 (1)(A), and 18B read with Sections 27 (D) and 28 (A) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and issued process against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the present case is that as per the averments in the impugned complaint, on 26.02.2015, the respondent, Drugs Control Officer, Churu, collected samples of the drug “Defalcort-6 Tablets, Batch No. AT080695” from the premises of Sai Medicos, Churu (Accused No. 1). The said drug, manufactured by Adwin Pharma, was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Jaipur, who, vide report dated 21.08.2015, declared the drug as “Not of Standard Quality” due to non-conformity with the prescribed assay of deflazacort. 3. During the course of investigation, Accused No. 1 disclosed that the impugned drug was procured from Accused No. 5, M/s S. K. Medicine House, Bhiwani, Haryana, who, in turn, had purchased it from Accused No. 7, ELS Distributors, Sonipat, Haryana. The respondent Drugs Control Officer issued a notice dated 01.10.2015 to Adwin Pharma, which responded in November 2015, expressing its intention to adduce evidence against the Government Analyst’s findings. Subsequently, the drug sample was forwarded to the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, through the competent court, and the findings of the Government Analyst were affirmed. 4. Thereafter, the respondent instituted the impugned complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, on 12.11.2021. The court took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons against the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the proceedings on the grounds that the complaint and the order of cognizance are barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . Furthermore, it is contended that no specific criminal liability has been attributed to the petitioner, who has been arraigned as an accused solely on account of being a partner in Adwin Pharma. 5. Furthermore, it is contended that no specific criminal liability has been attributed to the petitioner, who has been arraigned as an accused solely on account of being a partner in Adwin Pharma. 5. The petitioner submits that the impugned complaint lacks the essential ingredients of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 , and being aggrieved, has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 6. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 7. It is a settled principle of law that a criminal complaint against a partner of a partnership firm or an officer of a company does not lie unless the complaint contains clear and specific allegations that the said person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Mere designation as a partner or officer is insufficient to fasten criminal liability. 8. The impugned complaint lacks any such specific averments against the petitioner, and there is no allegation that she acted negligently, in connivance with, or with the consent of any other accused in committing the offence. In the absence of such allegations, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 . In order to implicate a director or a partner, it must be shown that such a person was actively responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time. A mere bald assertion is not sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. 9. That the impugned complaint fails to establish the petitioner’s liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 . For ready reference Section 34 the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is reproduced here under- 34. A mere bald assertion is not sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. 9. That the impugned complaint fails to establish the petitioner’s liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 . For ready reference Section 34 the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is reproduced here under- 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: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (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 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. Explanation.--For the purposes 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. 10. Section 34 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 states that when an offence under the Act is committed by a company, every person who was at that time in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business shall be deemed guilty. However, this liability is not automatic and must be specifically pleaded and proven. Section 34 (2) of the Act provides that criminal liability can be fastened only if the offence was committed with the consent, connivance, or negligence of the accused. The complaint lacks any such allegations against the petitioner. However, this liability is not automatic and must be specifically pleaded and proven. Section 34 (2) of the Act provides that criminal liability can be fastened only if the offence was committed with the consent, connivance, or negligence of the accused. The complaint lacks any such allegations against the petitioner. The scheme of the Act suggests that liability arises due to the conduct, act, or omission of a person, and not merely on account of holding a particular office or designation. Therefore, in the absence of specific allegations, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted solely based on her position as a partner in the firm. 11. The proceedings are barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The offence under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of two years, and under Section 28A, it is punishable with imprisonment up to one year. As per Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C ., the period of limitation for such offences is three years. 12. The period of limitation under Section 469 Cr.P.C . commences either from the date of commission of the offence or from the date it comes to the knowledge of the complainant. In the present case, the Government Analyst’s report was issued on 21.08.2015, and the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, was issued on 14.07.2016. Accordingly, the limitation period commenced in August 2015 and expired in August 2018. 13. The complaint was filed on 12.11.2021, long after the prescribed limitation period had lapsed. There is no application under Section 473 Cr.P.C . for condonation of delay, nor does the impugned order record any satisfaction of the court regarding the extension of limitation. 14. The petitioner was a sleeping partner at the relevant time and was neither managing the firm’s affairs nor involved in the manufacture of the impugned drug. The partnership deed itself evidences this fact. A vague and omnibus allegation without any substantive role assigned to the petitioner renders the complaint unsustainable. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the complaint lacks specific averments against the petitioner under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 .The allegations in the complaint do not establish any direct or vicarious liability of the petitioner. The proceedings are barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C . 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the complaint lacks specific averments against the petitioner under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 .The allegations in the complaint do not establish any direct or vicarious liability of the petitioner. The proceedings are barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C . and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The complaint and cognizance order constitute an abuse of process of law. 16. Accordingly, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Complaint No. 1191/2021 {CNR No. RJCH020008502021} and the order dated 12.11.2021 taking cognizance of the offences are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. 17. The stay petition stands disposed of.