SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1989, decided on 23/08/1991, directing the impleadment of the petitioner in Case No. 66-3 of 1989. Let the facts of the case be stated thus :

(2.) The Food Inspector took sample of 'Coconut Toffees' from Janak Raj, a retail seller at Manali. At the stage of taking the sample, the bill of sale was shown to him, however, the petitioner was not added as a party. At a later stage, when the report as to the substandard nature of the food article was received from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, an application under S. 20-A of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter in short 'the Act'), was moved to implead the petitioner in the case. This action was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Mandi who allowed the plea and set aside the order of impleadment made by the trial Judge. In the order, it was observed that in case the applicant could produce more evidence to connect the petitioner with the case, he could do so and the trial Court could implead the petitioner in case the evidence so warranted. Accordingly, Janak Raj adduced some evidence. This evidence included sale bills, seizure by Excise and Taxation Department of certain goods of the petitioner and local sales in favour of certain customers, showing that the petitioner used to sell coconut toffees wrapped as such, but in the bill they were described as "Goli Khand Bina Rang". After looking into the matter, the trial Judge allowed the application and added the petitioner as party to the case.

(3.) The order was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu who has disallowed the plea of the petitioner, hence this petition.