SATISH KUMAR BHATIA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Satish Kumar Bhatia, a partner of M/s Bhatia Brothers, S.C.F. No. 53, Grain Market, Sector-26, Chandigarh, has filed this petition under S.482 read with Ss.397/401 of the Criminal P.C. and Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt. 6-5-1986 of the trial court.

(2.) The brief facts of this case may be stated as under :

(3.) On 27-9-1983, Food Inspector, Shri P.S. Verma, went to the shop of respondent No. 3, Roop Lal Sharma, shopkeeper. He showed his intention of taking sample of sweets for the purpose of analysis. It is alleged that no bill of sale (warranty) was shown at the time of the purchase of this sample. On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the contents of the sample contained mineral oil and the ash insoluble in dilute HC 1 is 0.28% against the maximum prescribed standard of O. 2%. On the strength of this report, prosecution was launched against respondent No. 3 under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. On a notice having been served upon respondent No. 3, an application under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') was filed by respondent No. 3 on 22-12-1983 showing his intention to get the second part of the sample analysed from the Central Food laboratory. This report, by this authority, showed the presence of mineral oil and it did not conform to the standard of hard boiled sugar confectionery as laid down in item A.25.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. This report is dt. 27-10-1984. After the receipt of this report from the Central Food Laboratory on 10-1-1985, an application under S.20-A of the Act was filed by respondent No. 3 praying for impleading the petitioner as a party as the sample in question was purchased from this Firm.'The trial court, vide order dt. 16-8-1985, summoned the petitioner for 30-9-1985. After hearing the parties, the court passed the order of impleadment of the petitioner. The petitioner assails this action by way of this petition on two grounds.