RAJEEV JAIN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very unique and peculiar method, but totally unknown to law, was adopted by the learned trial Magistrate which led to the summoning by him of the petitioner as an accused in a case pending before his Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) RESPONDENT had filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli alleging therein that 40X5 Kg. bags of Fortified Whole Wheat Atta was adulterated. According to the averments contained in the complaint, the complainant inspected the premises of M/s Parkash Agencies, Parwanoo on 23rd August, 2003 and purchased a specified quantity of the aforesaid wheat Atta and made samples thereof. M/s Parkash Agencies being a retail seller of the wheat Atta accordingly was impleaded as accused No.1 in the complaint through its Manager, namely, Shri Pawan Kumar. In para (2) of the complaint, there is a specific averment that accused No.1 disclosed to the complainant under Section 14A of the Act that it had purchased the Atta in question from Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. The averment to this effect, as forming part of para 2 of the complaint, reads thus:-

(3.) IT was based upon the aforesaid averments that the complaint was presented before the learned trial Magistrate impleading Pawan Kumar as accused No.1 and Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. as accused No.2. It shall be advantageous to take note of the description of the accused persons as it is occurring in the cause title of the complaint. The description is as under:-