K C VARGHESE Vs. A O AUGASTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner who had not involved himself in any crime received a summons from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha directing him to appear as one of the accused in C.C. 36 of 1984. He seeks to quash the same.

(2.) The above complaint was filed by the Food Inspector alleging that one K.V. Joy committed certain offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the proceedings were initiated against this K. V. Joy. While so on 17-7-1984 the Food Inspector filed a petition stating that the accused Joy was not the real culprit but his father, the present revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition and impleaded him as a coaccused and issued summons against him.

(3.) It is not made clear under what provision the Magistrate had impleaded the revision petitioner as one of the accused. Obviously it is not under S.20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, since the petitioner is neither manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any food article. The other relevant provision is S.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the Magistrate to proceed against any person not being the accused and the same can be invoked only on fulfilment of certain conditions.