Gopal Krishan and Krishan Chand vs The State

D.B. Lal, J.—This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, wherein while deciding a revision arising out of a complaint u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he has recommended for quashing the order of the Magistrate summoning the dealer M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan and the manufacturers M/s Hargopal Mal Shivji Mal.

The facts giving rise to revision are, that the Food Inspector filed a complaint u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act against one Munshi Ram in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The allegation was that a sample of ''sarson'' oil was taken from the shop of the said Munshi Ram on 24-7-1970 and after a part of sample was sent to Public Analyst the same was found to be adulterated. Munshi Ram, however, submitted an application on 24-12-1970, saying that he had purchased sarson oil from the dealer M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan who in their turn purchased it from the manufacturers M/s Hargopal Mal Shivji Mal. Munshi Ram also produced a bill pertaining to the firm M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan in proof of the fact that he had purchased the sarson oil from that firm. The learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint summoned the dealer and the manufacturer. Objections were filed by both of them before the learned Magistrate with reference to Section 20A of the Act that evidence was to be adduced for the satisfaction of the Magistrate to hold that they were also concerned with the offence and only thereafter they could be summoned as accused. These objections were rejected by the learned Magistrate. The order summoning the accused was made to stand and that compelled the dealer and the manufacturer to come in revision before the learned Sessions Judge.

After quoting Section 20A, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the satisfaction of the Magistrate was required to be there which could only be after the evidence was adduced that the dealer and the manufacturer were also concerned with the commission of the offence. This evidence was to be adduced "during the trial" which had not yet commenced. Before getting satisfaction u/s 20A of the Act, the Magistrate could not summon the dealer and the manufacturer merely upon the request of the accused Munshi Ram. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. He has rightly quashed the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the two accused--firms at the initial stage.

A perusal of Section 20A will make it clear that during the course of trial the Magistrate has to be satisfied on the evidence adduced before him that the dealer or the manufacturer were also concerned with that offence, and only then they could be summoned as accused to stand trial along with the original accused dealer from whom the sample was taken. In the instant case, Munshi Ram merely put in an application and no evidence was adduced in support of that application. The bill supposed to be written at the shop of M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan was required to be duly proved. Someone had to come and state that the sarson oil was in fact purchased from M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan and that the latter purchased it from M/s Hargopal Mai Shivji Mai. u/s 19(3) of the Act, if a plea of warranty was taken by the accused the person by whom the warranty was given has a right to appear to hearing and give evidence. Thus the person giving warranty is required to be produced as a witness under that provision. Before he could be made an accused, the minimum requirement of law is, that some Prima facie evidence should be adduced before the court so that his concern with the commission of the offence is proved. Only thereafter Section 20A will have its application.

I am, therefore, in entire agreement with the order of the learned Sessions Judge and accepting his recommendation quash the order of learned trial Magistrate summoning the accused M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan and M/s Hargopal Mal Shivji Mal. The case has to go back to the learned trial Magistrate for consideration on evidence produced so that the provisions of Section 20A are invoked, and if he feels satisfied from the evidence adduced before him during the course of the trial that the two firms were involved in the Commission of the offence, he would be at liberty to summon them as accused in the case.