AYAKALI NADAR SONS Vs. SIVASANKARA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When can a person who is not an accused could be proceeded against under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Can he be impleaded as an additional accused before evidence is adduced These are the questions to be settled in the case.

(2.) Facts are not disputed. Fourth respondent, Food Inspector, Thiruvalla filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla against respondents 1 to 3, the accused, alleging that they committed offence under Sections 7(i), 16(1A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Summons were issued to respondents 1 to 3. Learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the complainant, as provided Under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter framed charge on 17.3.2003. When the case was posted for recording evidence on 2.6.2003 third respondent filed Annexure-I petition under Section 20A of the Act, producing a delivery note as well as Form XXVI issued under Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act to implead the petitioners, the firm and its partners, as additional accused 4 to 6 contending that the food article was purchased from the firm and so they are also concerned with the offence alleged in the case. By order dated 2.7.2003, learned Magistrate allowed the petition and impleaded petitioners as accused 4 to 6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed under Section 20A of the Act contending that when evidence was not adduced, learned Magistrate cannot implead petitioners as additional accused.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.