FRANCIS Vs. DINESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth accused in C.C. No. 612/1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, who has been impleaded as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. M.P. 2949/99 filed by the 3rd accused asserting that he had purchased the adulterated article from M/s. Sindhu Traders, Basin Road, Ernakulam (petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s. Sindhu Traders). Learned Magistrate allowed the impleading application Crl. M.P. 2949/99 relying on the decision rendered by this Court in Chanda v. Food Inspector ( 1990 (1) KLT 572 ) and issued summons. Pursuant to the summons issued the 4th accused appeared before the court below and filed a petition (Crl. M.P. 3900/99) to discharge him under S.245(2) Cr.P.C. mainly placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M/s. Omprakash Sivaprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose and Others ( 1999 (3) KLT 861 ). That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that Magistrate has no power to review his own order. That order passed is assailed before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the main contention urged on behalf of petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before impleading the 4th accused (petitioner herein) under S.20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short the Act) four conditions are to be satisfied and counsel contended that learned Magistrate erred grossly in allowing the application to implead the petitioner as 4th accused without satisfying the existence of the four conditions.

(2.) Counsel on both sides fairly submitted that the impleading application was filed by the 3rd accused to implead the 4th accused / petitioner before the Magistrate asked other accused persons (accused 1 to 3) whether they plead guilty or not as envisaged in S.251 of the Code and before recording the plea of the accused. Needless to point out that evidence in a trial under the Act can be adduced only after recording the plea of the accused. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the four essential conditions to be satisfied under S.20A of the Act to implead a person under S.20A of the Act are: (1) the trial should have begun already; (2) the trial must be of any offence under the Act allegedly committed by a person other than the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of the food article; (3) the Court must have been satisfied that such manufacturer or dealer or distributor is also concerned with the offence; (4) such satisfaction must have been formed on the evidence adduced before the Court.

(3.) I have already stated that impleadment of the 4th accused has been ordered and summons has been issued before commencement of the trial and the order impleading the 4th accused is not sustainable on the ground that above stated four conditions were not satisfied and the Magistrate erred in allowing to implead the petitioner under S.20A of the Act. In the decision cited supra the Supreme Court considered the meaning of the term trial and the following observations are made by the Supreme Court.