AYODHYA PRASAD GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard parties. The relevant facts are that sample of chilli powder was taken for analysis by the Food Inspector concerned on 20th of Aug., 1973 from the shop of accused Nawab. Sanction was obtained for prosecuting Nawab and also the firm "Avinash Dihatti". During the trial of Nawab under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the complaint filed on 19-8-1974, applications were made for impleading the applicants namely - Ayodhya Prasad and his son Avinash Kumar and the same were rejected by the Magistrate concerned on 3-1-1976. Subsequently, another application was moved by the Food Inspector for impleading the applicant on 25-1-1977 and, ultimately, they were ordered to be impleaded and charge was framed against them by the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 5-8-1978.

(2.) The first contention put forward was that the applicants could be impleaded only in accordance with Sec. 20-A of the Act. A perusal of the complaint will show that therein Nawab was shown to be the manufacturer as well as dealer. If that be the case, a perusal of Sec. 20-A will show the applicants could not be impleaded. It is true that the complaint only contains allegations and there should be no bar to impleading a manufacturer or distributor or dealer if during the trial the Court finds that the person being tried is not a manufacturer, distributor or dealer. But in this case besides Nawab, Avinash Dihatti the Firm was also shown as Manufacturer. Nawab, no doubt took the plea that chilli powder used to be supplied to him by the applicants. But it is not there that Nawab did not use to purchase chilli powder from any other source and there is no evidence on the record to show that the applicants are partners of Avinash Dihatti or are concerned with it.

(3.) Under the circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 5-8-1978 impleading the applicants and framing charges against them is set aside. Application allowed.