JANG BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (for short the code (Jang Bahadur has sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent through a complaint dated 6th June 1980, and in which the petitioner had been summoned by the trial Court for 9th July, 1980.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the details of the complaint, in substance the allegations therein amount to these that Dr. Balraj Sharma visited the shop of Rule Mal, Kariana Merchant, Baghapurana, District Faridkot on 23 -11 -1979. and purchased a sample of chillies powder AGMARK marked for analysis. The public analyst this report found the sample to be adulterated being unfit for human consumption. The Food Inspector filed a complaint filed a complaint against Rud Mal and also against Jang Bahadur petitioner and Ravi Uppal partners in Jyoti Spices, as co -accused on the assumption that the chillies powder AGMARK purported to have been packed and sold by the wholesaler to the retailer, the petitioner company too was liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here -in -after referred as the act) On the date fixed in the complaint, the learned Magistrate without examining the complainant, summoned the retail -dealer as also the two partners of the wholesaler Company as accused and hence this petition by Jang Bahadur.

(3.) THE only question pressed upon me by the petitioner's counsel is, whether the complaint could proceed against the retail -dealer as also the manufacturer simultaneously. There is an authority for the proposition that the retail -dealer in the first instance has to set up a defence of warranty that the purchased the article of food from another and sold it to the Food Inspector in the condition in which he purchased it. Now in the instant case, it is not clear whether any such warranty was put -forth at the time when the Food Inspector purchased the article of food in the process of sampling it. Thus in the situation, it could not be assumed by the Food Inspector that the article of food was manufactured by the petitioner's Company. This obviously is a matter of evidence. For the purpose section 20 -A of the Act takes adequate care conferring powers on the Court to implead manufactures etc. It may well be quoted here :