RADHAKRISHNA TRADERS KOLLUR Vs. C V SASEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.T. Case No:18/2000 was filed by the Food Inspector against the vendor and the distributor. The allegation is that on 15.12.1999 at about 12.00 noon, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the 1st accused and after serving Form VI notice he purchased 750 grams of Orid gotta. Sampling, sealing and labelling were done. The Public Analyst reported that the articles did not conform to the standard prescribed. Hence, complaint was filed against two accused.

(2.) An application was filed by the 2nd accused before the learned Magistrate that he had purchased 134 bags of Orid whole (Orid gotta) from the Manufacturer, M/s.Radhakrishna Traders, Kollur as per Invoice dated 30.11.1999 and that the said quantity of 134 bags of Orid- Whole was delivered by road on 03.12.1999 and the same was entered in the Registers kept by him. According to him, it was out of the said 134 bags, he sold two bags to Chambakassery Stores as per bill no.1900 dated 7.12.1999. According to him the manufacturer is a necessary party to this case. It is also stated that he had sent a letter to the Food Inspector on 18.02.2000 stating that the name of the nominee of M/s. Radhakrishna Traders, Kollur is T.Shankar Prasad. Since the Food Inspector did not implead the manufacturer, petition was filed by A2 under section 20A of P.F.A. Act to implead the manufacturer as the 3rd accused. That petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate stating that on going through the evidence brought out through PW1 and Ext.D2 there are grounds to hold that A2 got the articles from another distributor. The copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to the Food Inspector and also the copy of the Way Bill/Invoice were relied on by the learned Magistrate to hold that the distributor, M/s. Radhakrishna Traders, Kollur has to be impleaded as 3rd accused.

(3.) Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impleadment under section 20A of the P.F.A. Act can be made only when it comes to the notice of the Magistrate from "the evidence adduced before it during the trial" that such manufacturer (distributor or dealer) is also concerned with that offence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel there must already be evidence adduced in the case to satisfy the court that manufacturer (distributor or dealer) is also concerned with the offence.