Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Offences by Companies
Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with criminal liability where an offence under the Act is committed by a company. It provides for liability of the company and, subject to the statutory conditions, persons responsible for the conduct of its business and specified officers whose consent, connivance or neglect is connected with the offence.
Text and meaning of Section 34
Section 34(1) - Company and persons in charge
Where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, the company and every person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business are deemed guilty and may be proceeded against and punished according to law.
The proviso protects such a person from punishment if that person proves that the offence was committed without his or her knowledge, or that all due diligence was exercised to prevent the commission of the offence.
Section 34(2) - Consent, connivance or neglect of officers
Section 34(2) operates notwithstanding sub-section (1). Where a company commits an offence and the offence is proved to have occurred with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, that person is also deemed guilty and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation - Meaning of company and director
For Section 34, the expression "company" means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. In relation to a firm, "director" means a partner in that firm.
Key elements of liability under Section 34
- An offence by the company is the foundation: Section 34 applies when an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been committed by a company.
- Responsibility for business conduct matters: Under sub-section (1), liability is linked to whether the person was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business when the offence occurred.
- Statutory defence: A person covered by sub-section (1) may rely on lack of knowledge or proof that due diligence was exercised to prevent the offence.
- Specific officer liability: Under sub-section (2), a director, manager, secretary or other officer may be liable where consent, connivance or neglect is proved.
- Firms are included: The statutory definition expressly includes a firm or other association of individuals within "company", and treats a partner as a "director" in relation to a firm.
Practical significance
Section 34 is a vicarious-liability provision. Merely identifying a person by a corporate designation does not replace the statutory requirements. In a prosecution, the allegations and evidence must be considered in the context of the applicable limb of Section 34 and the underlying offence under the Act. Sub-section (1) focuses on responsibility for the conduct of the company's business, while sub-section (2) separately addresses consent, connivance or neglect attributable to specified officers.
Due diligence and absence of knowledge
The proviso to Section 34(1) expressly recognises two grounds by which a person otherwise falling within sub-section (1) can avoid punishment: proof that the offence occurred without that person's knowledge, or proof that the person exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. Whether this defence succeeds depends on the facts and evidence of the particular case.
Related provisions
For the surrounding statutory scheme, see Section 34A - Offences by Government departments, Section 34AA - Penalty for vexatious search or seizure, Section 36AB - Special Courts, and Section 36AC - Cognizable and non-bailable offences in certain cases.
Last reviewed: 25 September 2026. This page is an explanatory reference and should be read with the current statutory text, applicable rules, amendments and case-specific facts.