VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against Inder Mohan Under Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for alleged sale of adulterated turmeric powder to the Food Inspector on 29-4-1974. After the said Inder Mohan appeared in court but before any evidence was recorded, he filed an application stating that he had purchased the turmeric powder from the firm of Messrs Maheshwar Kumar Subash Chander of which the petitioner Vijay Kumar was a partner and that the turmeric was purchased from the said firm under a warranty and that the petitioner may be impleaded as an accused in the case. In support of this application Inder Mohan produced the bill alleged to have been given by the firm for the said purchase and which contained the warranty. He also produced a copy of the partnership deed of the firm according to which Vijay Kumar was a partner of the firm. On the basis of this material the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be impleaded as a co-accused in the case. The petitioner thereupon appeared before the court and filed his objections to the application filed by Inder Mohan. In these objections the petitioner denied that he had sold any turmeric powder to Inder Mohan under any warranty and that there was no material on record justifying the impleading of the petitioner as a co-accused in the case. The learned Magistrate overruled these objections and held that the material placed before him made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Justifying the impleading of the petitioner as a co-accused in the case he, therefore, passed an order purporting to be Under Section 20-A of the Act impleading the petitioner as a coaccused in the case. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the said order of the learned Magistrate.

(2.) THE order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged before me on the following grounds : namely, (1) that the order Under Section 20-A of the Act could be passed only after a charge had been framed against the main accused in the case, namely, Inder Mohan, (2) that an order Under Section 20-A can be passed only on the basis of the evidence recorded during the course of the trial and could not be passed upon material which had not been proved as required under law, and (3) that the material on record did not justify the passing of the order Under Section 20-A of the Act against the petitioner. Section 20-A of the Act reads as follows :

(3.) THE first question for consideration is what is the meaning of the words 'during the trial' appearing in Section 20-A of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends-that in cases which are tried under Chapter XXI of the Criminal P. C. i. e. the trial of warrant cases, the trial begins only after the charge is framed against the accused and that the proceedings prior to the framing of the charge are only in the nature of an inquiry and not a trial. In the present case the order Under Section 20-A was passed before the charge was framed against the main accused, Inder Mohan and therefore according to the learned Counsel the order Under Section 20-A was not passed during the trial. It, is no doubt true that generally speaking the word 'trial' is understood as referring to the stage of the proceedings in a criminal case after the charge has been framed against the accused, But the question is whether the word 'trial', is used in Section 20-A as referring to the stage of proceedings after the framing of the charge. The word 'trial' has not been defined in the Criminal P. C, and some times, the word 'trial' has been used in the Criminal P. C. itself as referring to a stage of proceedings prior to the framing of the charge. Reference may be made to Section 494 of the Criminal P. G. which reads as follows :