STATE OF KARNATAKA vs PRATAP CHAND & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the respondents under Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, stating that the prosecution failed to establish the violation as the report of the Inspector was not proved and the Inspector was not examined. The Court clarified that the term 'person in charge' under Section 34 refers to someone in overall control of the business, and since respondent no. 2 was not in such control, he could not be convicted. The defense version remained unrebutted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the State of Karnataka.