BANARSI DAS Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application for quashing the proceedings taken against the petitioners under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The petition arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) MOHD. Ashraf Khan, a Food Inspector of the city of Srinagar, took a sample of Ghee from the accused, Abdul Sam-ad-Gujri who is standing trial before the Municipal Magistrate Srinagar. A part of i he-sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner who found that the sample was adulterated and did not conform to the standard prescribed. The accused did not plead guilty, but contested the trial and while the witnesses of the prosecution were being examined under Section 256 of the Criminal P. C, the accused Abdul Samad Gujri filed an application before the trial court for summoning the petitioners under Section 20-A of the Act, inasmuch as they were manufacturers of the adulterated article of fool and were therefore liable to prosecution under Section 20-A of the Act. The Food Inspector, who is the complainant in the case, supported the application of the accused and pressed for the prosecution of the petitioners also. The trial court heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and by his order dated 11-6-1974 on being satisfied that the petitioners were connected with the offence alleged against them, directed that they be summoned and arrayed as accused in the case. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up in revision to this court.

(3.) IN support of the rule, Mr. R. P. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners raised three important contentions before me. In the first place he contended that Section 20-A was itself ultra vires as being vola-tive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Secondly it was contended that the procedure prescribed by Section 20-A deprives the petitioners who are to be summoned under Section 20-A of the special protection provided to the other accused by way of the fact that the complaint against them can be filed by a person authorised by a competent authority. Lastly it was argued that as the defence of the petitioners and that of the accused, Abdul Samad Gujri, were diametrically opposite, the petitioners would be seriously prejudiced if they were jointly tried with the other accused at whose instance they were sought to be summoned. Finally some comment was also made on the question of warranty but it is not necessary for me to go into this question because the validity of the warranty etc. is a matter which has to be gone into at the trial and cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage when the petitioners want the quashing of the proceedings.