MODERN UNITED TRADING COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY PRAFULLA KU. SAMANTARAY @ PRAFULLA CHANDRA SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) FOR ready reference, the relevant portion of the sanction order is quoted below:

(3.) From the above -quoted provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act. It is clue that the expression 'vendor' is used in the Act to connote someone other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The view that under the Act the 'vendor' does not belong to the same category of persons as that of a manufacturer or distributor or dealer receives support from the decision D. Mitra v. State of Bihar, 1987 Cri L.J. 657. In this case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a 'distributor' of the article of food in question within the meaning of the Act and the same is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Hence I hold that the expression "vendor and partners of the grocery Firm" does not include the Petitioner firm as well, as it is admittedly a 'distributor' but it merely refers to the person whoever vends the article of food in question on behalf of the firm Balaram Das. So, it leaves no room for doubt that the C.D.M.O. has not accorded the necessary sanction for prosecution the Petitioner. Hence the trial Court acted illegally in framing the charge against the Petitioner taking the view that there was sanction for prosecution the Petitioner. As the C.J.M. had framed the charge against the Petitioner on an erroneous basis, the charge so framed against the Petitioner is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, that part of the impugned order fuming the charge against the Petitioner is hereby quashed. As the C.D.M.O. has not accorded sanction for prosecution the Petitioner, the order passed earlier by the trial Court taking cognisance against the Petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is also hereby quashed. However, it is open to the learned C.J.M. at any stage of the trial to issue summons against the Petitioner making him a co -accused in the case and proceed against him under Section 20 -A of the Act in case on a consideration of the material available before him he finds that adopting such a course is necessary in the interests of justice.