CHANDALMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceeding is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The relief of quashing and setting aside the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 1186 of 1997 (New number Summons Case No. 290 of 2009) is claimed and the relief of setting aside the order of issue process is also claimed. The case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The proceeding is filed by respondent No. 2 - Food Inspector for contravention of provisions of sections 7(i) r/w. section 2(ia)(a) which is punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) and under section 7(i) r/w. section 2(ia)(m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The accused No. 1 of the aforesaid case is the person from whom sample of edible oil cotton-seed was collected by the complainant, Food Inspector. He is partner of accused No. 4, firm, which runs S.T. Canteen, Central Bus Stand, Aurangabad. From this place, sample came to be collected. Petitioner, accused No. 5, is said to be supplier of the oil. Accused No. 25 is manufacturing firm of the aforesaid oil and accused Nos. 6 to 24 are the partners of the said firm.

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that he himself had purchased tin of aforesaid oil from the manufacturer and he had sold the tin of oil to accused No. 1 in the same condition. According to petitioner, he is entitled to the benefit of section 19(2) of the Act and he needs to be treated as the ' vendor' for the purpose of section 19(2) of the Act.

(3.) It was submitted for the petitioner that the term 'vendor' used in section 19 of the Act is not defined in the Act, but the meaning of this word given in Oxford Dictionary and Legal Dictionary shows that 'vendor' means 'seller'. It was submitted for petitioner that he had sold the tin containing oil to the hotel and as the tin was purchased from manufacturer, accused No. 25, the provision of section 19(2) needs to be used in favour of the petitioner also.