MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Simla, allowing the application of respondent No. 2 for impleading the petitioner as a co-accused under section 20A-1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to as the Act).

(2.) KULDIP Chand (referred to as the accused) was found selling deshi-ghee. Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation, Simla, took, a sample of this ghee for analysis on 20th April, 1972. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated because of deficiency of 6. 37 in the reichert value. The Food Inspector filed a complaint under section 16 (9) (1) of the Act against the accused. The accused was duly summoned. During the course of the proceedings the accused made an application under section 20-A of the Act praying that the present petitioner be impleaded as an accused. It was contended that he had purchased deshi ghee from the accused.

(3.) THE next contention of Mr. Sood is that the deficiency being negligible the prosecution should be quashed. Various decisions are cited by the learned counsel for the parties on this question. I will now examine them.