SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simla, dated 26 -4 -1986 whereby the petitioner has been impleaded as one of the accused in pursuance of the prayer of accused Rup Lal in an application under section 20 -A of the Prevention of hood Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shri Yudhister Lal, Food Inspector, Simla, took a sample of cows milk from Ashwani Kumar on 31 -3 -1984 out of a tin. The Food Inspector, after dividing the sample into three parts, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, in his report (Annexure P -2), opined that the percentage of milk fat was deficient by 14% than the minimum prescribed standard. Consequently, a complaint under section 16 (l)(a) of the Act was made by the Food Inspector against the vendor, Shri Ashwani Kumar of M/s. Nanak Chand, 73, Lower Bazar, Simla.

(3.) The accused Shri Ashwani Kumar thereafter filed an application under section 20 -A of the Act and asserted that he was only a retail vendor. He sold the sample article from a sealed tin which he had purchased from one Shri Rup Lal S/o Ratti Ram, M/s. Jain Dhaba, Middle Bazar, Simla and the bill issued by Shri Rup Lal to the applicant for the month of March, 1984, showing the supply of milk and receipt of payment therefore, was also indicated. It was also indicated that the tin in which the said ˜ASR SML Shri Rup Lal supplies milk to the applicant had the mark of. SD RL It was further contended by Shri Ashwani Kumar, applicant, in this application that he sold the milk in the same state and condition to the Food Inspector in which he had purchased it from the said Shri Rup Lal and the said article of food while in the custody of the applicant was properly stored. In fact, he asserts, the sample was taken just at the time when the said tin had arrived in the shop of the applicant. In these circumstances, Shri Rup Lal was liable for the offence, if any, under the Act The trying Magistrate recorded the statements of two witnesses, namely, applicant Ashwani Kumar as AW 1, who reiterated his submissions made in the application, and he was supported by said Shri Rup Lal, who appeared as A W. 2. On the basis of this material, the learned Magistrate found that there was sufficient ground to implead Rup Lal as co -accused under section 20 -A of the Act and, therefore, after impleading him as such, summons for his appearance were issued on 15 -1 -1986.