RANGANATHA AGENCIES Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR BADAGARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that falls to be decided in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether the provisions of S.20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) can be enforced against the Revision Petitioner for his impleadment as an additional accused in C. C. 281 of 1970 which is pending trial before the Additional I Class Magistrate, Quilandy against the original accused, in respect of the offence under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) This question arose for consideration out of the order of the lower court dated 29-12-1971 impleading the revision petitioner as an additional accused in the case pending before the lower court. The case against the original accused was lodged by the Food Inspector, Badagara on the allegation that the sweets he purchased from the original accused were adulterated. On 13-11-1969 the Food Inspector purchased one Kilo of sweets designated as "Raj Sweets' for Rs. 3/- from the original accused at his shop and after due observance of legal formalities a tripartite division of the same was made. Thereafter he sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst in accordance with law. Another part was given to the original accused in a sealed bottle and the third part was sent to the court. The Public Analyst in his report dated 28-1-1970 gave the verdict that the sample analysed by him contained non permitted coal tar dye and was therefore adulterated. On that basis a charge was laid against the original accused on 10-8-1970.

(3.) The lower court began the trial during the course of which Pws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and then the accused was questioned under S.342 Cr.PC. The accused produced a warranty alleged to have been issued by the revision petitioner in respect of the article in question and pleaded that he is entitled to the protection afforded by S.19(2) of the Act. On the next hearing date the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the lower court for impleading the revision petitioner under S.204 of the Act, as the manufacturer of the article in question as it had come out in evidence that he was also equally concerned with the offence. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition permitting the impleadment of the revision petitioner under his order dated 29-12-1971. It is this order which is impugned in this revision petition. S.20A reads: --