GOVINDARAJAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL SANITARY INSPECTOR PALNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Govindarajant now ordered by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dmdigul, to be impleaded as the third accused in C.C. No. 994 of 1979 on his file, has directed this petition under section 482, Criminal Proceduxe Code, for quashing the proceedings as against him in the said case pursuant to the order, dated 7th December, 1979,passed by the learned Magistrate under section 319 (1), Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE brief history of the case which led to this petition can be stated thus Initially the respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the fiist accused, viz., one Venkataraman, for an offence under sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 2 (ia), clauses (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (XXXVII of 1954), as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the allegation that the said Venkataraman was found to be in possession of ten bundles of adulterated tea dust packets, weighing about 2.300 Kilograms, for the purpose of sale, and that he offered the same for sale to the Food Inspector lor the purpose of analysis and sold 690 grams (three bundles) to the Food Inspector for a cash consideration of Rs. 11.40, and that the sample, on analysis, was found to contain about 20 per cent, of extraneous matter other than tea and ash insoluble in H.C.L. was in excess over the maxi mum Imposible limit by 100 per cent. It is seen that the Court, subsequently, by its order in Crl.M.P. No. 2329 of 1979 dated 7th May, 1979, on a memo, filed by the prosecution under section 20-A of the Act, ordered one Ranganathan to be impleaded as the second accused as he is said to have been conducting one Doable Rose Tea Company at Udumalpet and had sold adulterated tea dust packets in bundle form to the first accused Venkataraman at Palni. It is seen that two witnesses viz, the Food Inspector and another, were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and Exhibits P-1 to P-9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Both the accused examined the petitioner herein as D.W. 1 and filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5. After recording the evidence of D.W- 1 and marking the documents on the side of the defence, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to be impleaded as the third accused along with accused 1 and 2 and further directed that copies of the said order be served on accused 1 and 2, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial Court and the petitioner herein. It is only at this stage, the petitioner who claims to have not received any copy of the impugned order or any summons from the Court, has filed this petition.

(3.) NOWJ I shall take up the above submissions- one by one. Before adverting to the Submissions made by the learned Counsel, I would like to mention here that sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) (b), of section 319 of the new Code are new provisions, whilst sub-section (3) of section 319 of the new Code corresponds to sub-Section (1) of section 351 of the old Code, and the present sub-section (4) (a) of section 319 corresponds to sub-section (2) of section 351 of the old Code, but with a difference that the opening words of sub-section (4) have been newly introduced. The condition precedent for the application of section 319 (1) is that the proceedings should be taken against a person for an offence which he appears to have committed -in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence-, provided it appears from the evidence that the person proposed to be impleade has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the other accused. Admittedly, in the present case, the trial had commenced and the witnesses have been, examined on both sides. The crucial question is whether on the examination of D.W.1 the trial had finally come to an end and thus concluded. If the trail had finally concluded, then this section cannot be availed of by the Court to implead the petitioner herein to take trial along with accused 1 and 2. Therefore, we have to see the exact meaning of the words -in the course of the trial.-