LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-416

GUPTA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Decided On May 17, 2018
GUPTA TRADERS Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

(2.) In respect of alleged adulterated Soyabean Oil, an investigation was undertaking by the competent authority and oil was subjected to report of the public analyst on 17.4.2003. Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh formed an opinion which reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that (Annexure P8) dated 11.5.2012 in respect of allowing of Sh. Mukesh Kumar's application to implead the petitioner as co-accused is concerned, it is not in accordance with Section 20-A of PFA Act. He further submitted that ingredients of Section 20-A of the PFA Act has not been complied by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak while allowing the application filed by one Shri Mukesh Kumar to implead the petitioner with reference to no objection given by one Shri Om Kumar Government Food Inspector, Rohtak on the impleading application. Further AnnexureP-8 dated 11.5.2012 insofar as impleading petitioner as co-accused is concerned, consequential proceedings undertaken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, stands vitiated. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions: (i) Omparkash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose, 1999 AIR(SC) 3870 (see: Para-6); (ii) Bipul Sarma v. State of Assam,2015 35 RCR(Cri) 133 (see: Paras 12 and 13); (iii) Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. State of Haryana,2002 2 CLJ(Cri) 72 and (iv) Shyam Sunder Aggarwal and another v. State of Haryana, 2015 5 LawHerald(P&H) 3886 (see: Para14). It was further submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, Courts have time and again held that under Section 20-A of the PFA Act, competent court is required to examine two things namely satisfaction and evidence before allowing application filed under Section 20-A of the PFA Act. He further submitted that from the zimni orders read with order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-8), it is evident that both the ingredients of Section 20-A of PFA Act are not forthcoming. Thus, competent Court has not complied Section 20-A of PFA Act in respect of order dated 11.5.2012. Hence, impugned Action are liable to be set aside.