RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector launched prosecution for offence under S.2(l) (a)(m), 7(1) and 16(1) (a) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Aa against the accused Somanathan Nair. When the Food Inspector was about to be examined, he submitted a report before the Court that Somanathan Nair is not the person from whom the milk was purchased. In the report he stated that the petitioner is the person who sold milk to him and the petitioner supplied false name and address to him. The learned Magistrate accepted the report of the Food Inspector and discharged Somanathan Nair, and impleaded the petitioner as the accused. Trial Court found him guilty. The appeal (Crl. A.26 of 1986) filed by him was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate went wrong in substituting him in the place of accused Somanathan Nair mentioned in the complaint and for that there was clear lack of jurisdiction as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not authorise the Food Inspector to make any application to the Court to substitute another person for the accused mentioned in the complaint. Another contention is that application of S.319 Crl. P.C. is totally unwarranted in this case. In view of the conflicting decisions in Varghese v. Augusthy ( 1988 (1) KLT 80 ) and Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. ( 1985 CriLJ 1677 ), Sreedharan, J. held that an important question of law arises for decision in the Criminal Revision Petition and that it should be heard by a Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) For the application of S.319 Crl. P.C. it must appear from the evidence during the course of any enquiry or trial that a person not being the accused has committed an offence and that he can be tried together with the accused already on the party array. In such a case, it is perfectly open to the Court to proceed against such a person for the offence which he appears to have committed. It is an essential prerequisite that there must be evidence disclosing the commission of any offence by a person other than the accused so that he could be tried together with the original accused. Only in such a case, S.319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. A report from the Food Inspector cannot be construed as evidence to invoke S.319. If the Food Inspector had given evidence before making the application to implead the petitioner as the accused position would have been different. As the report filed by the Food Inspector is not evidence the Trial Court erred in impleading the petitioner as the accused. Moreover, as Somanathan Nair was discharged, the petitioner who was impleaded subsequently as the accused could not be tried together with the former. There was hardly any material for the Trial Court to invoke S.319 Crl. P.C. and to proceed against the petitioner.