BHOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a complaint instituted against one Kailash Kumar under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the petitioner, Raja Spices, was arraigned by the Food Inspector as accused No. 2. Somehow no specific order was passed by the learned Magistrate in summoning accused No. 2. On the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Pointing out the omission, the learned Magistrate summoned accused No. 2, whose Sole Proprietor is Bhola Ram, the present petitioner. On appearing before the learned Magistrate, he prayed for being discharged as allegedly there was no evidence on record to connect him with the offence. The prayer was declined. His revision petition before the Court of Session was dismissed. Now he invokes the inherent jurisdiction of the Court claiming that proceedings against him are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) THE complaint discloses that Kailash Kumar vendor disclosed to the Food Inspector that Messrs Raja Spices were the manufacturers/distributors of the article seized. Therefore, a notice in Form -VI, as prescribed under the rules, was also stated to have been given to Messrs Raja Spices. But for that information as statedly given to the Food Inspector by the vendor -Kailash Kumar, no material was available on the record to establish that Messrs Raja Spices were infact the manufacturers or distributors of the article. Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reads as follows : - "14. MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS TO GIVE WARRANTY. - No manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor : Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this section. Explanation : - In this section, in sub -section (2) of Section 19 and in section 20 -A, the expression "distributor" shall include a commission agent." In the absence of a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor or a dealer to a vendor, there could arise no presumption on the mere label on wrapper that the person purported to be the manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof is in fact such manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The bare word of the vendor in that regard would not be enough. There had to be something more to it. On the file, there is no bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the article of food sold. Thus, no occasion for the present has arisen to employ even the provisions of section 20 -A of the Act in impleading the petitioner as an accused in the case. Thus in the circumstances, proceedings against the petitioner, on the present record, seem to be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Proceedings against the petitioner are accordingly quashed, leaving it open to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. Nothing said herein would, however, prevent the Magistrate in summoning the petitioner at a later stage if evidence out his involvement is brought on the record. This petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations. Petition allowed.