LAWS(P&H)-1985-7-43

ATTAR SINGH SETHI Vs. UNION TERRITORY

Decided On July 29, 1985
Attar Singh Sethi Appellant
V/S
UNION TERRITORY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two Criminal Misc. petitions No. 2550-M and 2962-M of 1985, having arisen out of a complaint dated March 25, 1983 in which the petitioners had been summoned as co-accused by the trial Court for April 13, 1984.

(2.) ON January 25, 1983, O.P. Gautam, Food Inspector, visited the shop of Anis Ahmed, SCF No. 198, Sector 7, Chandigarh, where the letter is running a Bakery. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of maida from him as a sample and on being analysed, it was found to be adulterated. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, took cognizance upon the said complaint on the same day and issued process against Anis Ahmad. In obedience to the summons, Anis Ahmad entered appearance on April 12, 1983, and subsequently filed an application under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) praying that Attar Singh Sethi, proprietor of M/s. Amrit Roller and Flour Mills, Chandigarh and Labh Singh be implicated as co-accused. In support of this application, Anis Ahmed placed on record a bill dated 25.1.1983, allegedly issued by Labh Singh, Sales Manager of the Mani Majra Co-operative Marketing and Processing Society, Grain Market, Chandigarh (for short, the Society) and also examined Abdul Raulif and Labh Singh, After hearing the parties, before him, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated March, 9 1984. The petitioners, therefore, seek to invoke the inherent and revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate on March 9, 1984.

(3.) A bare reading of the above provision would show that before the power vested in the Court under this section can be invoked : (1) there must be pending before the Court a trial of an offence under the Act alleged to have been committed by any person other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any food article; (ii) there must have been adduced some evidence in the course of such trial to show that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of the food article in question is concerned with the offence alleged to have been committed by the person proceeded against in the trial and (iii) the Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it is prima facie satisfied that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is concerned with such offence.