DESA SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Desa Singh, proprietor of D. M. Desa Singh Majith Mandi, Amritsar has challenged the order dated 4-4-1974 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. , Kulu ordered the petitioner to be impkiaded as an accused under the provision of Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (shortly called the Act) and the order dated 15-1-1975 whereby the learned Magistrate ordered that a charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act be framed against Shri Desa Singh.

(2.) SHRI R P. Sharma, who was posted as Food Inspector in Kulu in September, 1972, purchased three packets of Kashmiri Mirch as sample from Shri Vijay Kumar on 30-9-1972 on payment of Rs. 3. 45, The sample as required under the law, was sent to the Public Analyst who found the same to contain living insects. The Food Inspector, therefore, filed a complaint against Vijay Kumar under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act.

(3.) IT appears that the plea of Shri Vijay Kumar was that he had purchased the Mirch from the shop of Iswar Singh and Sons, Amrifoar. On that the learned Magistrate ordered Ishwar Singh to be impleaded as a party under the provision of Section 20-A of the Act, but later on the learned Magistrate discharged Shri Ishwar Singh and, thereafter ordered that summons to be issued to implead the present petitioner under provision of Section 20-A of the Act, Simultaneously he ordered M/s, Sham Sunder and Bros, who were suppliers of this Kashmiri Mirch to be summoned as witness in this case, as it was submitted by Shri Vijay Kumar that he had purchased the DEGI MIRCH from M/s. Desa Singh and Sons, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, through M/s. Sham Sunder and Brothers, Commission Agents, Majith Mandi, Amritsar. Shri Sham Sunder was examined but he denied that the Mirch supplied to Vijay Kumar was purchased from M/s. Desa Singh but that he had purchased that Mirch from Ishwar Singh and Sons and the same was not supplied by him. Thereupon the learned Magistrate ordered that Sham Sunder was not coming out with the truth to help the Court and impleaded him under Section 20-A of the Act, by his order, dated 198-1974 against which Sham Sunder went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who, however, quashed the order as being unjustified and without legal basis.