HARISH RANGTA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 27.3.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.29-S/10 of 2007 whereby the respondent No.2 Shri Narender Sood, a dealer was ordered to be summoned by the learned trial court by impleading him as an accused under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in short 'the Act', was set aside.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner herein was running a shop at Lellu Pul and was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, as sample of 'Lehar Slice' Bottle 250 ml purchased by the Food Inspector was found to be misbranded by the Public Analyst. A notice of accusation was put to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) During the trial of the case, an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 14 read with Section 20-A of the Act for impleading respondent No.2 as co-accused being the Dealer having sold the said product to him, on warranty Ex.AW1/ A. The application was kept pending by the learned trial court, on the ground that it could only be considered when the evidence of the complainant is examined. Thereafter the Food Inspector examined four witnesses, but the counsel for the petitioner refused to cross-examine the witnesses, on the ground that he could not prepare the case. The trial Court closed the evidence. Thereafter, the application was fixed for the reply of the respondent, in the meantime, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, vide his order dated 14.7.2006 and the case was remanded back with the direction to the learned trial court to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant and also to decide the application of impleadment.