AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 461 wordsG.S. Chahal, J.
R.K. Aggarwal who is a partner of M/s. Hari Chand Siri Gopal, Noida (U.P.) by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated February 13, 1992 passed by JMIC, Tohana.
The prosecution had been launched for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against Jagdish Chand alias Jagdish Rai as he had been found in possession for sale Mayur Pan Masala, and a sample of this article having been obtained by Food Inspector was sent for examination and having been found adulterated, the prosecution was launched.
During the course of the prosecution, Jagdish Chand moved an application for summoning of the manufacturer of the Mayur Pan Masala and supplied the name of the petitioner as the manufacturer. The Food Inspector pointed out to the Court that precharge evidence be recorded and if anything comes against the manufacturer, only then he may be summoned. However, the learned Magistrate proceeded to examine the application and on the basis of the application, the impugned order was passed.
The learned Magistrate appears to have acted under Section 20A the Act. This Section reads as follows :
"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 309 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 under Section 20."
To act under the provisions of this Section, the Magistrate had to rely upon the evidence produced and if on the basis of the evidence so produced, there was judicial satisfaction that the manufacturer had committed an offence, only then he could be summoned. Mere allegation of the accusedperson was not sufficient to pass an order of summoning of the manufacturer.
In Bhola Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 270, it was observed that the bare word of the vendor in the absence of bill, cash memo or invoice was not sufficient to justify an order of summoning of the manufacturer.
I hereby allow this petition and quash the impugned order. It shall be open to the Magistrate to reconsider the matter of summoning of the petitioner in case evidence comes forth during the trial justifying the summoning of the petitioner. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.