D MITRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner, D. Mitra, Manager of M/s Hindustan Lever Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its Registered Office at Hindustan Lever House at Bombay in complaint case No. C (III) 157/73 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(2.) The relevant facts are these: On 15-9-1973, G. N. Prasad, Food Inspector of Ranchi Municipality visited the shop of Bharat Trading Agency, Ranchi owned by Dayalal Chouhan. Having served intimation on Dayalal Chouhan that he would purchase Banaspati Dalda from him, the Food Inspector purchased Banaspati Dalda from him and after going through all the formalities he sent the sample of Banaspati Dalda to the Public Analyst. He received report of the Public Analyst which showed that the Banaspati Dalda was adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Rules. After obtaining necessary sanction the Food Inspector filed a complaint on 14-12-1973 for the prosecution of Dayalal Chouhan, Proprietor of Bharat Trading Agency for an offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Accused Dayalal Chouhan was put on trial. The Food Inspector, G, N. Prasad, was examined in that case as P. W.I on 18-9-1975. P.W. 2 was examined on 27-10-1975. P. W. 3 was tendered and a formal witness (P. W. 4) was examined on 13-11-1975. On 25-11-1975 the learned Magistrate, in whose Court the case is pending having heard the lawyers of the parties on the question of framing charge passed the following order:

(3.) It is said that on or about 5-4-1976 the petitioner came to know that he has been impleaded, as an accused in this case. Mr. R. Jethmalani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that Section 20-A of the Act has no application to this case which was instituted against a dealer and that the manufacturer cannot be proceeded against as accused when: the prosecution was intimacy launched against a dealer. According to the teamed Government Pleader a Manufacturer can also be made co-accused Under Section 20-A of the Act at any time during the trial even, in a case instituted originally against a dealer.