Satyavan vs State of Haryana and anr.

S.K. Jain, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide which the order of February 10, 1992, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, thereby dismissing the petition for summoning the manufacturer has been challanged.

Government Food Inspector, Jullana, on August 28, 1990, purchased three packets of edible Birla Common Salt from Ram Kumar accused. When the sample of the commodity was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated inasmuch as the iodine content fell below the minimum specified 15.0 PPM at retail level. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against Ram Kumar, etc.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar that the learned Magistrate had also summoned the distributorSatyavan petitioner herein, alongwith the dealer Ram Kumar in the proceedings under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying that he had purchased the commodity from the manufacturer, M/s Magnum India Corporation, a marketing house of Birla (Temple) Salt, G79, Main Vazar Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, and therefore the said manufacturer be also summoned to face the trial. The learned Magistrate vide order February 10, 1992 dismissed the said petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order by way of this criminal revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction vested in him with illegality or at least with material irregularity in declining to summon the manufacturer. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the ratio laid down in Dalima Dairy Industries Limited v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent CR 506. Faced with this argument, the learned AAG has submitted that the impugned order was perfectly legal and the learned trial Magistrate had committed no illegality or irregularity much less material in declining the application of the petitioner.

In order to appreciate the point involved it is expedient to examine the provisions of section 20A of the Act which is reproduced below for ready reference :

"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 of 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 under Section 20."

So, according to the said provisions, before summoning the manufacturer of distributor or dealer, the Court should be satisfied that there was evidence that such manufacturer or distributor or dealer was concerned with the offence. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned trial Magistrate in detail in Paras 5 and 6 of the impugned order. It is evident from the said order that the petitioner had produced before him only a photocopy of the bill dated 26.3.1990 in order to connect the manufacturer with the offence. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied on the said evidence that the manufacturer was concerned with the offence. He has observed a sunder :

"This bill cannot be connected with the iodised salt out of which the sample was allegedly taken from accused Ram Kumar nor this bill makes it clear that the iodised salt was in a sealed packet. It only shows that 100 bags of iodised salt were purchased by M/s Ram Chander Satyavan Goel from M/s Magnum India Corpn on 26.3.1990 at the rate of Rs. 85/ per bag. It is also not clear from his bill that the applicant kept the bags of salt in the same condition from 26.3.1990 to 28.5.1990, the date on which he supplied one bag of this iodised salt to accused Ram Kumar vide his Bill No. 2184 dated 28.3.1990 copy of which is already placed on the record by accused Ram Kumar. In this way, it can be said that at this stage, in my opinion, there is no evidence available on the record which can warrant the summoning of the manufacturer................"

During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce the original bill but he could show only a photocopy and offered to get the original from the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that on the basis of the material placed before him, the learned trial Magistrate was not satisfied that the manufacturer was concerned with the offence and that being so the requirement of section 20A of the Act had not been met with.

Before parting with the judgment, I would also like to mention here that in Dalima Dairy''s case (supra), the manufacturer had been originally arrayed as an accused in the complaint. The learned Magistrate had summoned him also. The manufacturer had taken the matter to the High Court saying that the vendor had not till that stage set up any warranty under section 14 A of the Act and thus no connection between the vendor and the petitioner (manufacturer) stood established and further that till such connection was alleged or indicated on the file, the learned Magistrate should not have issued process against him under section 20A of the Act. But, herein the manufacturer had not been arrayed by the Food Inspector as an accused in the complaint and it was the distributor who had moved an application before the trial Magistrate praying that the manufacturer be also summoned. I can possibly have no quarrel with the above said authority and I am in respectful agreement with the observations contained in para 5 thereof to that effect that when evidence is led, nothing stops the vendor to establish the connection between him and the distributor/manufacturer by methods wellknown to law. That being so, if during the trial a connection is established between the seller/distributor/manufacturer, nothing can restrain the learned trial Magistrate from summoning the manufacturer.

For the aforementioned detailed discussion, I am of the firm view that the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity much less and illegality and the same is affirmed. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.