PARRYS CONFECTIONERY LIMITED Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ULUNDURPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are by accused 4 in both the cases. One case is C. C. 153 of 1982 out of which Cr. R. C. 634 of 1982 and Cr. M. P. 5277 of 1982 arise. The other is C. C. 270 of 1982, out of which Cr. R. C. 633 of 1982 and Cr. M. P. 5279 of 1982 arise.

(2.) AS regards the first case, viz, C. C. 133 of 1982, the Food Inspector, Town Panchayat, Ulundurpet, visited on 28-1-1982 at 11-45 a. m. the Taj Biscuit Stall Main, Road, Ulundurpet, run by accused 1 in that case and he found he was having in his possession, for the purpose of sale misbranded Parry's twin toffee. The Food Inspector purchased 900 grams and the same was sampled as per the procedure prescribed by law. Upon the sample being subjected to chemical analysis it was found that it contained artificial colour matter and there was no statement on the wrapper of the product that it contained such matter. Therefore prosecution was launched under Sec. 7 (ii) read with Sec. 2 (ix) (j) and (k) and Sec. 16 (1-A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against accused 1, the vendor, accused 2, the owner of the Fathima Fancy Stores, Ulundurpet, and accused 3, Book sellers and Stationery Elementary School Street, Kallakurichi, who are intermediaries. "when all the three accused appeared before the court, the accused filed a petition under Sec. 20-A of the Act, for impleading Messrs. Parrys and Co. , as 4th accused. The Magistrate passed an order impleading M/s Parrys and Co, on 30-8-1982, which order is the subject matter of Cr. R. C. 634 of 1982, praying to set aside the order and Cr. M. P. 5277 of 1982, to quash the proceedings as far as accused 4 is concerned.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner contended that for the purpose of exercise of powers under S. 20-A of the Act, four conditions were necessary viz. ,1. The trial for an offence should be pending 2. There must be evidence before the court 3. The court should be satisfied by the evidence 4. When the trial is against a dealer, the manufacturer cannot be prosecuted.