Ramesh Sarma and Another vs State of Assam and Others

S. Haque, J.—The Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur took cognizance of the offence under Sections 7/17 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide order dt. 17-10-1979 against (1) Firm Shewnarayan Chhaganlal represented by (2) accused Chouthmal Bhati and accused Ramgopal Brahmin in C.R. Case No. 675 of 1979. After recording evidence partially the Court by its order dt. 18-1-1980 by virtue of power, u/s 20A impleaded (1) Assam State Cooperation Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd., Tezpur and (2) Shri Ramesh Sarma, Branch Manager as co-accused to face the prosecution. Again vide order dt. 11-3-1980, the Court by virtue of Section 20A impleaded Shri Gopal Das and Mohanlal being partners of M/s. Gopal Industries, Dharamshala Oil, Morena, Madhya Pradesh as co-assued to face the prosecution.

Shri Ramesh Sarma, Branch Manager, A.S.C.M. & C.F. Ltd. has impugned the order dt. 18-1-1980 of the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1981; whereas, M/s. Gopal Industries has impugned the order dt. 11-3-1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Revision No. 254 of 1981. Both the revisions have out of the 2 different orders u/s 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') in the same case and so heard analogous and disposed of by this judgment and order.

Learned counsel Mr. T. C. Khatri submitted that the Magistrate had no material and scope for impleading the petitioners by invoking the power u/s 20A by the 2(two) impugned orders and referred several decisions. On the other hand learned counsel Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee representing the 1st set of accused submitted that the elements for invoking the power u/s 20A by the Magistrate was very much there in both the occasions and that the orders are valid and petitioners had been justly impleaded to face the trial together with the 1st set of accused. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. C. R. De has endorsed views expressed by Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee. Perused the impugned orders and materials on record.

The sample of mustard oil was collected by the Food Inspector from the shop of 1st set of three(3) accused and the Public Analyst opined the sample to be adulterated and the Food Inspector with the sanction u/s 20 lodged the complaint/offence report and thereupon the Court took cognizance of the offence u/s 7/17 read with Section 16 of the Act for prosecution of the 1st set of 3(three) accused and they are not the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of the adulterated food article in question. On scrutiny of the record and the relevant documents, it is found that there was no defect, illegality or irregularity apparent on the face of record in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences and starting the prosecution. However, it will be open for the accused party, during the trial of the case, to point out the defects on these points that may be brought out in progress of further proceeding of the trial.

Section 20A of the Act reads as:-

"20A.- 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 (subsection (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)."

The provision contained in this section permits the Magistrate, at any time, to join any manufacturer, distributor or dealer of an article of food as accused in the case in which any person other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of the adulterated article of food is being tried for any offence under the Act, if the evidence adduced by deposition or documentary before it, the Court is satisfied that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence. In order that the manufacturers, distributor or dealer may be impleaded u/s 20A, it is necessary that there should be a trial of an offence committed under the Act by a person and that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer must be concerned in the offence, When once the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is impleaded, the trial proceeds as if he is also an accused. In order to avoid multipli-city of proceedings and conflict of findings it is imperative that the Magistrate/Court should implead these persons u/s 20A, whenever the conditions laid down in the section are satisfied in a case during the trial The order of the Magistrate does not require a detail consideration of the evidence and setting-forth all the grounds on which it is satisfied or desired to summon any person with the aid of Section 20A as a co-accused. In the application of Section 20A, no separate sanction u/s 20 is required. S, 20A is in-the nature of an exception to Section 20 of the Act, and clearly lays down that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer can be impleaded as accused, during the trial of the case, even if no prosecution against them was sanctioned u/s 20.

During the progress of the instant case in the trial, on partial recording of evidence and from documents, the Court was satisfied that the distributor or dealer namely second set of accused, and the manufacturer namely third set of accused are also concerned in the offence alleged and thereupon by two orders dt. 18-1-1980 and dt. 11-3-1980 court proceeded against them exercising power u/s 20A of the Act. All the elements required in the trial of a case for invoking the power u/s 20A were very much present before the trial Court.

The case laws/decisions referred by Mr. T. C. Khetri :-

Roshan Lal Singhania and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, ; D. Mitra Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, are found not helpful for the purpose of this case. The guidelines given in V.N. Kamdar and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and also in (1981) 1 FAC 15 (All) are found helpful.

There was no illegality in the impugned orders dt. 18-1-1980 and 11-3-1980 impleading the petitioners as accused to face the trials. There is nothing to interfere.

Both the Criminal Revisions Nos. 300 of 1981 and 254 of 1981 are dismissed.

Send down the records immediately. It has become very old pending case. The alleged offence occurred on 31-7-1979 and 1-8-1979. The trial Court is directed to give top priority so as to conclude the trial within 6(six) months.