RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE AND M.C.D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Aug. 2, 1965, at about 5 p.m. a Food Inspector purchased eight bottles of honey with identical labels from one Jagat Narain, a partner of the owners of the shop M/s. E. Plomer Company, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Samples were taken and sent for chemical examination. They were found to be adulterated. Jagat Narain was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act). He was able to produce a warranty of the Honit Pvt. Ltd. the manufacturers of the honey. While acquitting him the learned Magistrate, however, summoned Ram Kumar who was the managing director of the company under Sec. 20A of the Act, but the order was quashed by this Court on Nov. 17, 1970, vide Ram Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1973 F.A.C. 79 . A complaint was then, lodged against him on Feb. 1, 1973, that the honey in question was manufactured by him and supplied to Jagat Narain. When the trial of the offence against Ram Kumar was proceeding along, the prosecution made an application under the said section 20 A for impleading M/s. Honit Pvt. Ltd. as well. The learned Magistrate accepted the petition on Aug. 18, 1977. He held that though section 20 A is not applicable as the trial had not yet commenced, the case being only at the stage of the charge, yet he could implead the firm under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it seems under sections 319 and 190 thereof. Now the Honit Pvt. Ltd. has no grievance, but Ram Kumar has made the present petition that the impugned order of the Magistrate dated Aug. 18, 1977 along with the proceedings against him too, be quashed.

(2.) It was urged that according to law as settled by this Court Ram Kumar cannot be prosecuted unless the Honit Pvt. Ltd. company is found guilty of the offence. But the prosecution was awakened to this difficulty too late and has made an application on Aug. 4, 1977 for summoning the company. This was done when the prosecution evidence was over. The trial will now have to proceed denote to the immense prejudice of the petitioner, if the impugned order is allowed to stand. It was for the contended that Ram Kumar is already facing trial as a manufacturer and said section 20 A can be invoked only if Ram Kumar were not a manufacturer, a distributor or a dealer. Reliance was placed upon Amar Nath Vs. The State, 1973 F.A.C. Short Note 8 . He also submitted that the trial below is being proceeded with on the basis of the copies of the documents as the original file in which Jagat Narain was prosecuted has been lost in fire.

(3.) As far as the loss of the documents is concerned, no grievance can be made because if the loss is proved, then all the documents can be proved by secondary evidence under section 65 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, The last contention therefore, fails. The other contention is also devoid of force because the company is being summoned more in virtue of section 17 than section 20A of the Act, The liability arises under section 17 and section 20A permits an accused being added without any further consent of the appropriate authority. This contention too is hereby rejected.