VINODCHANDRA CHIMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, learned A. P. P. , Ms. Calla, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE Revisionist is accused No. 12 in P. F. A. Case No. 55 of 2000 before Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipal), Surat facing charges under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He had moved an application before J. M. F. C. (Municipal), Surat praying for discharge and dropping of the proceedings against him on the ground that accused No. 12 is not connected with the sale or with the manufacturing of the product in question. That this question can be decided only after the evidence by the prosecution/complainant is led, and, therefore, the revision.

(3.) LEARNED senior advocate Mr. Raju appearing for the revisionist submitted that there is no attribution or allegation against the revisionist/accused No. 12 of any kind. The product in question is a bottle of aerated soft drink, which was taken from Surat, but, the bottling was done at Surendranagar, and the company's registered office is at Delhi who are already joined as accused No. 10 and 11. In absence of any allegation of any involvement of accused No. 12 in the complaint, there was no scope for joining the revisionist as an accused. That apart, if ultimately, some evidence comes on record, implicating the revisionist original accused No. 12, he may be joined again as an accused. As such no prejudice is likely to be caused to the original complainant - respondent No. 2 herein.