Amar Saran, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment of the JM. Ghaziabad, dated 20.6.1986 in Case No. 437 of 1985, whereby the objection of the applicant has been overruled and the prosecution has been permitted to withdraw certain papers find documents as the complaint in another Case No. 438/85 had got filed in this case (Case No. 437 of 1985) and vice versa and to bring the correct complaint and other relevant papers on record, as they had got mistakenly inter-changed in the two cases which related to the same accused. Secondly, that the order of impleadment of the applicant who was the manufacturer of the Vanaspati was illegal and against the provisions of Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(3.) So far as the submission about the Magistrate not being empowered to permit the Food Inspector to withdraw some of the wrong papers relating to the other case which were initially filed and to file proper papers was concerned, I find no merit in this contention. The ends of justice can never be defeated on such specious hyper-technical irregularities which may have occurred due to a bona fide mistake as the accused/vendor Newal Chandra was being prosecuted in two cases, 437 of 1985 (the present case) and 438 of 1985, (the other case). Instead of there being a detraction from justice, I think that the interests of justice were served if on finding that this irregularity had occurred the Magistrate allowed the Food Inspector to withdraw the incorrect papers which related to the other case and to file the correct papers pertaining to the present case.;