SIVA MWRTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Criminal Revision Cases, the scope of Seetion 20-A of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 No. 37 of 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", falls for consideration.

(2.) Criminal Revision Case No. 414 of 1984 arises out of the order made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur , directing Sivaraj Rathi & Co., of Adoni to be impleaded as the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 104 of 1983 on his file under Section 20-A of the Act. On a complaint instituted by the Food Inspector, Yemmiganur Municipality against the petitioners, S. Sivamurthy, Someswara Oil Depot, XVIII Ward, Yemmiganur and C. Nagabhushanam, Sales-man of the said Depot, under Sections 16 (1) and 7 read with Section 2 (ia) and (1) of the Act alleging that adulterated ground- nut oil was sold to him on 16-10-1981, the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur . During their examination under Sec. 313 Cr. PC the petitioners pleaded that what was sold to the Food Inspector, Yemmiganur Municipality was taken out from a sealed container supplied to their Depot, by Sivaraj Rathi & Co., of Adoni. In Support of their plea, Exs.D-1 to D-3, a credit bill dated 6-10-1981 for Rs,. 12,577-95 p. issued by Sivaraj Rathi & Co., to the 1st petitioner towards price of five barrels of groundnut oil, a counterfoil of Che cheque dated 14-10-1981 for Rs. 7,000/- issued by the 1st petitioner and a voucher dated 11-11-1981 for Rs. 5,899-74 issued to the 1st petitioner by Sivaraj Rathi & Co.., were filed by the petitioners. Exs. D-l to D-3 having been marked on belialf of the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the prosecution realising that the defence available Under Section 19 (2) of the Acii was put forward by the petitioners, orally requested the learned Magisterate to implead Sivaraj Rathi & Co., of Adoni as the 3rd accused in the case in the interests of justice under Section 20-A of the Act. According to the request, the learned Magistrate directed Sivaraj Rathi & Co., of Adoni to be impleaded as the 3rd accused in the case by his order dated 28-7-1984.

(3.) Criminal Revision Case No. 417 of 1984 arises out of the order dated 17-7-1984 passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.524 of 1984 filed by the petitioners for an order discharging them from C.C. No. 158 of 1982, in which they were impleaded as A-2 and A-3. The case was intially instituted only against one Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao by the Food Inspector, Rajahmundry Municipality under Sections 16 (1) and 7 (1) of the Act read with Section 2 (ia) and (j) of the Act for sale of adulterated redgram dal to h tin on 22-3-1982. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.'P.C. Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao pleaded that he had purchased one quintal of fedgram dall fr6m the firm of "Puruchuri China Venkateswarlu & Sons, Rajahmundry of which the petitioners are the partners under a cash bill dated 22-3-1981, a xerox copy of which was marked as Ex. D-1, that he stored the said stock of redgram in tact for sale in his shop, that he did not adulterate the stock and that what was sold to the Food Inspector was from out of the said stock. Grandhi Veera Venkata Rao having invoked, in defence, the plea available under Section 19 (2) of the Act, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1337 of 1983 was filed on behalf of the Food Inspector, Rajahmundry Municipality under Secition 20-A of the Act for impleading the petitioners as A-2 and A-3 in the case and for proceeding against them as though the complaint had been instituted against them under Section 20 of the Act. The said petition was allowed by the learned. Magistrate and summonses were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners having appeared before the Court in response to the summonses were supplied with copies of the relevant material and the Food Inspector was permitted to adduce fresh evidence under Section 244 Cr. P.C. The Food Inspector examined himself as P.W. 1 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 were marked on his behalf. All the three accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the case was posted for consideration At that stage the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 524 of 1984 for an order of discharge from the case on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, even if unrebutted, would not warrant their conviction. In other words, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that neither the oral testimony of P.W. 1 nor the documentary evidence consisting of Exs. P.1 to P. 8 did not disclose any prima facie case against them and that no reliance could be placed upon Ex.D-1 filed by the 1st accused during his earlier examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate negatived the plea of the petitioners and dismissed their application by his order dated 17-7-1984.