(1.)THE petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated October 30, a 1982 reversing the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar dated March 13, 1981.
(2.)BRIEF facts leading to this petition ate that the Food Inspector, Sitaram Sharma submitted a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Act') on January (sic)0, 1980 with the allegation that the purchased 600 gram of Khandsari sugar on October 25, 1979 from the shop of the petitioner situated at Sikar. The sugar was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. The case was first tried by Munsiff Magistrate, Fatehpur who framed the charge against the petitioner on July, 31, 1980. In reply to the charge accused Sanwar Mal admitted that the sample of sugar was taken from him but it was not adulterated. The case was subsequently tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. On February 12, 1981, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that he had purchased 17 sealed bags of sugar from the firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap Nayee Mandi, Mujjafarnagar (UP) on April 18, 1979. The Food Inspector had taken the sample from one of these bags which was also sealed and as such it was prayed that cognizance of the case should be taken against the Firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap and its partners and owners. The statement of Sitaram, Food Inspector, was recorded oh February 17, 198 i and the accused Sanwar Mal also appeared as a witness and his statement was also recorded on the same day. Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on March 13, 1981 impleading the owner or partners of the Firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap, Nayee Mandi, Mujjafarnagar (UP) and passed an order summoning, the above mentioned person by bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated March 13, 1961, Ram Pratap son of Laxmi Narain and the Firm Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap filed a revision. The learned Sessions Judge, Sikar by his order, dated October 30, 1982, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated March 13, 1981 taking cognizance against the revision petitioners. The accused. Sap war Mai, in these circumstances has filed the present revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated October 30, 1982.
The short controversy raised in the present case is whether the petitioner being a vendor of 600 gram of Khandsari sugar to the Food Inspector, can be considered as a dealer under Section 20A of the Act. It is contended by Mr. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was merely a vendor and the Firm Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap being a dealer should have been impleaded as a party and cognizance should have been taken him for the offence as contemplated under Section 20A of the Act. Reliance in support of his 'contention is placed on Ratantal Rastogi v. Crop of Calcutta 1972 FAC 742, I. M. Nayak v. Kantilal Ambalal Shah 1973 FAC 148 and Ranganatha Agencies v. F.I. Badagare Municipality 1973 FAC 75.
(3.)ON the other hand, Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the non -petitioners, submitted that the petitioner Sanwarmal was a licence holder of Khandsari sugar under the Rajasthan Khandsari and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1972 and was a dealer within the definition given under Section 2(c) of the Licensing Order It was submitted that it was an admitted fact that the 'petitioner, Sanwar Mal was a licence dealer of Khandsari sugar as is borne out from Ex. P 3 which bears his licence No. 207 for Gur and Khandsari sugar. It is contended that Section 20A of the Act does not apply in as much as the petitioner Sanwar Mal was himself a dealer of Khandsari sugar apart from being a vendor of the sugar. Reliance is placed on Ravindra and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1979 (2) FAC 362, P.L. Lamba etc. v. State etc, 19(sic)5 (1) FAC 37 and Shri Amar Nath v. The State 1978 (U FAC 72. It was also submitted by Mr. Jain that even according to the petitioner, Sanwar Mai, himself he had purchased the bags of sugar on April 18, J 979 from the Firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap, while the sample was taken on October 25, 1979 and at the time of sale no bill was given to the Food Inspector showing that 600 gms. of sugar was taken out of the bags supplied by the Firm Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap. It is thus, contended that it cannot be said that the sugar in question purchased by the Food Inspector was the same which was supplied by the Firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap. It was also submitted by Mr. Jain that though Sanwar Mal had appeared in the case on February 1, 1980 and in his statement given on July 31, 1980 he no where stated that the sugar purchased by the Food Inspector was out of the sugar supplied by the Firm M/s Laxmi Narain Ram Pratap. It was submitted that it was only on Feb. 12 1981 that such plea was taken for the first time and there is no explanation for such long delay and as such the plea now raised by the petitioner cannot be believed.