Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

P.N. Bakshi, J.—These are two connected applications u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Misc. Application No. 326 of 1980 has been filed by Raj Kumar. Criminal Misc. Application No. 396 of 1980 has been filed by Babu Lal and Ram Gopal. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector found Ram Gopal selling groundnut oil at the firm M/s. Babu Lal Raj Kumar Sahu. On 21st March 1978 a sample of the same was purchased by the Food Inspector and after completing necessary formalities, a complaint was filed against Ram Gopal who has been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. 6th December, 1978 was fixed for evidence of the complainant. On that date the statement of the Food Inspector was recorded. The statement of the Food Inspector disclosed that Babu Lal and Raj Kumar were the partners of the firm Babu Lal Raj Kumar. He appeared to be of opinion that both the partners of the firm should also be summoned u/s 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As such he has summoned both of them. Aggrieved thereby these two connected applications u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed in this Court which are up for disposal today.

2, I had heard learned Counsel for the parties on the last occasion and have also heard them today. The applicant''s counsel has submitted that Section 20-A does not authorise a Magistrate to summon the partners of the firm for being prosecuted along with the accused. The facts disclosed in the complaint and the statement of the Food Inspector are that Ram Gopal was selling the groundnut oil in question at the firm of Babu Lal Raj Kumar. Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act runs as follows:

20-A: Power of court to implead manufacturer etc.

Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the Court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) or in Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him u/s 20.

A perusal of the section clearly indicates that during the course of a trial with respect to a person who is alleged to have sold an adulterated article of food, the trial Court has been empowered also to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of that article of food which has been sold by the said firm. Partners of a firm cannot be said to be manufacturers, distributors or dealers of that article. Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down the procedure and the requirements for prosecuting a company or persons employed as Managers etc., of the company who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It would be a different matter if the partners of the firm are independently prosecuted if they can be held liable in accordance with law, but u/s 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to sumon the partners of a firm along with the accused who is alleged to have sold adulterated articles at the premises of the firm. This section is exclusively meant for roping in the manufacturer, distributor and dealer only and if they are so impleaded it obviates the necessity of separate sanction being obtained u/s 20 of the Act for their prosecution. That is, the sanction u/s 20 already obtained against the accused is good enough for prosecuting the manufacturer, distributor and dealer also if any of them are impleaded u/s 20-A of the said Act. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the partners of the firm Babu Lal Raj Kumar cannot be impleaded by the Magistrate in the exercise of powers u/s 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 326 of 1980 is hereby allowed and the order of the Magistrate in so far as it summons Raj Kumar partner of the firm is hereby quashed. Criminal Misc. Application No. 396/80 is also partly allowed and the order of the Magistrate summoning Babu Lal partner of the firm is quashed, but so far as Ram Gopal is concerned the case u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act shall proceed against him. To that extent this application stands partly dismissed. Ordered accordingly.