GOPAL BAGARIA Vs. SWARGA NARAYAN MAZUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prosecution was launched under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against opposite parties Nos. 3 to 9. Processes against those opposite parties were issued and they appeared. The learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar then recorded the evidence of opposite party No. 1 the District Food Inspector on 7 -9 -1979. On the same day O. P. No. 9 filed a petition praying to implead petitioner No. 4 as an accused in the case, alleging, inter alia, that the adulterated mustard oil was manufactured by the said petitioner. The following order was passed on this prayer : - "Two accused persons are present. Others are not present. Advocate filed petition, 3 witnesses are present. The evidence of one witness is recorded. Accused Dulichand Deepchand filed petition for impleading the manufacturer M/s Gopal Oil Industries. Barpeta Road as an accused. Heard From the evidence of P. W. 1 it is seen that the said firm is the manufacturer of the oil of the sample. Therefore, issue summons to M/s. Gopal Oil Industries. Barpeta Road, as witness under Section 20 -A of the Act. Fixing 9 -10 -1979."

(2.) IN pursuance to this notice petitioner No. 4 appeared through its Manager, petitioner No. 5 on 22 -9 -1980 on which date the following order was rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to whose file the case had been transferred in the meantime : - "22 -9 -1980. Accused Bhabesh is present. The Other accused persons are present through Advocate. Manager Sri Suparash Mall Bejwani appears on behalf of Gopal Oil Industries. He may go on local bail of Rs. 500/. Issue warrant of arrest with bail of Rs. 100/ - to the partners Gopal Bagaria, Arun Kumar Bagaria and Kumud Kumar Seksaria. The address of Kumud Kr. Seksaria is second Floor, 120 Mahatma Gandhi Road. Calcutta 7. The address of other two is Barpeta Road. The Manager has filed nomination paper. Keep it on record. It is not enough if the Manager is present. I consider that it is necessary to implead the partners of the firm in this case because there may be unnecessary delay if the processes are to be issued later on and the case will be delayed unnecessarily. The names of the partners are taken for the time being from the Manager. I feel that it is not necessary to collect the names from other source because there will be loss of time without any reason. This has been done under Section 20 -A of the Food Adulteration Act. Fix 30 -10 -1980, for appearance. Sd/ - P.N. Sarmah Addl. C.J.M. Sibsagar."

(3.) BY this application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the legality of issuing processes against the petitioners has been challenged. Shri Barua has ultimately advanced only one submission in support of the petition, and the same is that summoning of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is in violation of Section 17 of the Act.