GARG MASALA COMPANY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a Crl. trial under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, one Prag Raj, a retail dealer of turmeric powder sold in packets, had been arraigned as the principal accused. Since the packets of turmeric powder purchased from him by the Government Food Inspector prima facie appeared to have been manufactured by M/s. Garg Masala Company the present petitioner the Government Food Inspector had filed a joint complaint against Prag Raj and the present petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court in Cr. M. No. 4308 of 1982, which was accepted by me on 29.10.1982 and the view taken was that in view of the provisions of section 20 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the petitioner could not be summoned as an accused. I had observed as follows : -

(2.) THE principal accused Prag Raj then made an application for summoning M/s Khem Chand Bhagwan Dass of Nabha as co -accused on the allegation that the packet of Haldi powder had been purchased by the former from the latter under a bill/cash memo and on that application the learned trial Magistrate summoned the partners of M/s Khem Chand Bhagwan Dass. They too approached this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2855 -M of 1984. The same was allowed by me on 22.8.1984, while observing as follows : -

(3.) ON their being summoned, M/s Khem Chand Bhagwan Dass too had made an application that they had purchased the turmeric powder packets from M/s Garg Masala Company, the petitioner. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate issued summonses against the petitioner -Company impleading it as a co -accused. The present petition has been filed by it challenging the course adopted by the learned trial Magistrate on a variety of grounds. However, this petition can be disposed of on the most leading plea being that till privy was established between the principal accused Prag Raj and M/s Khem Chand Bhagwan Dass by summoning the latter, the occasion had not arisen to summon the present petitioner. The plea raised on the face of it is sound as it has attracted no answer from the learned counsel for the State. It is the admitted position that uptill now M/s. Khem Chand Bhagwan Dass have not been summoned as accused. Obviously no evidence has been adduced in that regard within the meaning of section 20 -A of the said Act. It is only on their being summoned as accused and further relevant evidence adduced that the petitioner -Company could be summoned as a co -accused. No such stage has come as yet. Thus, there is no option but to quash the summoning order of the petitioner and the charge framed against it leaving it open to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.