GOPAL KRISHAN AND KRISHAN CHAND Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, wherein while deciding a revision arising out of a complaint under Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he has recommended for quashing the order of the Magistrate summoning the dealer M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan and the manufacturers M/s Hargopal Mal Shivji Mal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to revision are, that the Food Inspector filed a complaint under Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Act against one Munshi Ram in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The allegation was that a sample of 'sarson' oil was taken from the shop of the said Munshi Ram on 24 -7 -1970 and after a part of sample was sent to Public Analyst the same was found to be adulterated. Munshi Ram, however, submitted an application on 24 -12 -1970, saying that he had purchased sarson oil from the dealer M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan who in their turn purchased it from the manufacturers M/s Hargopal Mal Shivji Mal. Munshi Ram also produced a bill pertaining to the firm M/s Muni Lal Gopal Krishan in proof of the fact that he had purchased the sarson oil from that firm. The learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint summoned the dealer and the manufacturer. Objections were filed by both of them before the learned Magistrate with reference to Sec. 20A of the Act that evidence was to be adduced for the satisfaction of the Magistrate to hold that they were also concerned with the offence and only thereafter they could be summoned as accused. These objections were rejected by the learned Magistrate. The order summoning the accused was made to stand and that compelled the dealer and the manufacturer to come in revision before the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) After quoting Sec. 20A, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the satisfaction of the Magistrate was required to be there which could only be after the evidence was adduced that the dealer and the manufacturer were also concerned with the commission of the offence. This evidence was to be adduced "during the trial" which had not yet commenced. Before getting satisfaction under Sec. 20A of the Act, the Magistrate could not summon the dealer and the manufacturer merely upon the request of the accused Munshi Ram. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. He has rightly quashed the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the two accused - -firms at the initial stage.