KHANNA OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 17-8-1984 directing the revisionist to appear on 17-9- 1984 and in default to summon him by bailable warrants.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the Food Inspector, A. B. Kandpal had pur chased mustard oil on 9-9-1983 from a sealed tin. THE sample on analysis was found to be adulterated by argemone oil. THE Food Inspector filed a complaint. He also prayed for summoning the supplier and manufacturer under Section 16 (l) (o) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sum moned the revisionist Khanna Oil Mills. Felt aggrieved it preferred this revision.

(3.) THERE is no material on record to suggest that any warrantly was given by the revisionist or the vendor had disclosed the name of the revisionist as vendor. In ab sence of any evidence regarding warrantly or permission under the proviso of Sec tion 14 (a) the Magistrate committed il legality in summoning the revisionist. The order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. However, it shall be open to the Magistrate to summon the manufacturer, dealer or dis tributor if during the course of trial it is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that the manufacturer, dealer or distributor is also concerned with the offence and to proceed against him as if the prosecution had been instituted against him. The revision is allowed. The order summoning the revisionist is quashed. Revision allowed. .