G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) These two petitions have been connected by the order dated 25-5-1982 and therefore they are being disposed of by a com mon order,
(2.) THE Chief Food Inspector, Bijnor took a sample of palm oil on 6 -10 -1977 from a shop of which Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor is owner. As per the report dated 24 -11 -1977 of the Public Analyst to the U. P. Government, the sample was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority, a complaint was filed against Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor for his prosecution under Section 7/16 prevention of Food Adulter ation Act. THE statement of the Food Inspector was recorded under Sec tion 244, Cr. P. C. wherein he stated that he had seen three tins of palm oil in the shop and on the tins, Brand "amrit Banaspati" was written. THE vendor Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor moved an application on 30 -7 -1981 stating that he had purchased ten sealed tins of palm oil on 27 -9 -1977 from a firm M/s. Khairati Ram Lalta Prasad, Bijnor of which Ramesh Chandra Agarwal is the proprietor and the said oil had been manufactured by Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. It was also stated that the Food Inspector had taken sample from one of the aforesaid sealed tins of palm oil and it was in the same condition in which it was bought from distributor. He had also sent a registered letter to the manufacturer Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. , Ghaziabad on 10 -10 -1977 but they gave no reply. It was accordingly prayed that the distributor and manufacturer be summoned as accused under Section 20 -A of P. F. Act. Along with the application the original cash memo regarding purchase of the palm oil was also annexed. THE learned Magistrate by the order dated 30 -7 -1981 summoned (1) Manager, Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. , Ghaziabad and (2) Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Proprietor Khairati Ram Lalta Prasad for their prosecution along with Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor. It appears that the Manager of M/s. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. , filed a revision against the aforesaid order being criminal revision No. 92 of 1981 and the same was allowed by Sri -R. A. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor by the judgment and order dated 24 -10 -1981 and the order of the Magistrate was set aside. THEreafter Ramesh Chandra Agarwal moved an application before the Magistrate on 23 -11 -1981 praying that the proceedings against him be dropped as the order dated 30 -7 - 1981 had been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge in revision which was filed by Manager, Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. THE learned Magistrate held that this was no stage to pass an order of discharge in favour of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and the matter could be considered at the stage of framing charge which would be done after recording statement of Chief Food Inspector. THE applicant Ramesh Chandra Agarwal then moved another application on 2 -2 -1982 for recalling the aforesaid order dated 5 -12 -1981 of the Magistrate but the same was also rejected on 10 -2 -1982. THEreafter he filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed summarily on 19 -3 -1982. THE present Criminal Misc. Application No. 2239 of 1982 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the first order of the Magistrate dated 30 -7 -1981 by which Ramesh Chandra Aearwal was summoned and the subsequent orders dated 5 -12 -1981 and 10 -2 -1982. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3162 of 1982 has been filed by Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1034 of 1981 which is pending against him. Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for Ramesh Chaadra Agarwal, has submitted that by a common order, dated 30 -7 -1981 the learned Magistrate had summoned Manager, Amrit Banaspati Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Khairati Ram Lalta Prasad under Section 20 -A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the said order had been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on 24 -10 -1981 in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 1981 and therefore the prosecution Of the applicant is not only illegal but also an abuse of the process of the Court and the same liable to be quashed. As stated earlier, the aforesaid two persons had been summoned under Section 20 -A of the Act an application to that effect had been moved by vendor Sukhdeo on 30 -7 -1981. The vendor had clearly mentioned in his application that he had purchased ten sealed tins of Basri Brand oalm oil manu factured by Amrit Banaspati Company Pvt. Ltd. , from the firm M/s. Khairati Ram Lalta Prasad. Bijnor of which Ramesh Chandra Agarwal was the proprietor and that the Food Inspector had taken the sample from his shop on 8 -10 -1977 after opening one of those sealed tins. He had further stated that the sealed tin was properly stored by him and was in the same state in which it was purchased. Along with the application he also annexed the cash memo dated 27 -9 -1977 which had been issued by the distributor. The learned Magistrate was prima facie satisfied from the statement of the Food Inspector and other evidence on record that the sample had been taken from a sealed tin and that the cash memo and the receipt dated 27 -9 -1977 showed that firm M/s. Khairati Ram Lalta Prasad had sold Basri Brand palm oil to the vendor Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor. The copy of the letters sent by vendor to M/s. Amrit Banaspati Co. Pvt. Ltd. and to Ramesh Chandra Agarwal were also placed before the learned Magistrate. After considering the aforesaid material, the leanred Magistrate passed the order dated 30 -7 -1981 for summoning the manufacturer and the distributor. Sec tion 19 (2) of P. F. Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated article of food if he proves that he purchased the same from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Section 14 provides that no manufacturer or dealer of any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he gives a written warranty in the prescribed form. The proviso to this section lays down that a bill or cash memo in respect of sale of any article of food shall be deemed to be a warranty Therefore if in the present case vendor Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor is able to establish that he purchased palm oil from a distributor (Ramesh Chandra Agarwal) and that the same, while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold in the same state as he purchased it, he shall not be deemed to have com mitted any offence. The application moved by vendor clearly shows that he has taken such a defence. In these circumstances, it was absolutely necessary to join the manufacturer and distributor also in the same trial. Section 20 -A of the Act [envisages joint trial of the vendor and the manufacturer or distributor or dealer of any article of food as the case may be. Under this section it is imperative on the part of the Court to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food when ever the Court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with the offence committed with which the vendor is charged. The satisfaction referred to in this section is to be reached by the Court on the basis of the material on record and no other rule or any guideline can be laid down regarding the data and quantum of material necessary or spiciest to teach this satisfaction. As noticed earlier, the learned Magistrate had before him the statement of Food Inspector and also cash memo which was filed by the vendor showing purchase of ten tins of Basri Brand palm oil from the dis tributor Ramesh Chandra Agarwal. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in summoning the manufacturer and distri butor of the palm oil, a sample of which was taken from the shop of Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor. The prosecution of the distributor, therefore, can not be said to be illegal or unwarranted in any manner whatsoever. Shri Pandy has next submitted that the learned Magistrate had passed a common order on 30 -7 -1981 by which Manager, Amrit Banaspati and the distributor Ramesh Chandra Agawral had been summoned but the said order had been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on 24 -10 -1981 and therefore the prosecution of the applicant is liable to be quashed. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel. Copy of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge had been filed as Annexure 4 to the petition and it shows that Criminal Revision No. 92 of 1981 had been filed by Manager (Quality Control), M/s. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. , Ghaziabad. The operative portion of the judgment shows that revision was allowed and impugned order summoning the revisionist was set aside. Admittedly no revision was filed by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal nor he was party to the same Therefore he cannot get any benefit of the order passad by the learned Sessions Judge as the same is in favour of the manufacturer. That apart it is difficult to follow the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment and order dated 24 -10 -1981. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision after recording the following two findings: (1) In a case where a dealer is being tried then under Section 20 -A manufacturer cannot be arrayed as an accused and no cogniz ance can be taken against the manufacturer or the distributor; (2) The evidence adduced before the learned C. J. M. cannot be considered to be a satisfactory evidence and it had not been duly proved that it concerned with the sample taken from the vendor. 5. The first finding of the learned Sessions Judge that where a dealer is being tried manufacturer or distributor cannot be arrayed as an accused is patently against the provisions of the Act. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly against the scheme of the Act and the law declared on this point by a series of judicial pronouncements. The second finding of the learned Sessions Judge also cannot be accepted as this was not the stage to judge the sufficiency of the evidence adduced before him. From the evidence adduced before the learned Magistrate, he was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for summoning the manu facturer. It cannot be said that it was a case of no evidence. The sealed tins clearly mentioned in bold letters that the same had been manufacture red by Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. , Ghaziabad, If the satisfaction of Magis trate was based upon some evidence, the sufficiency thereof could not be examined at the stage of summoning. The manufacturer was not being convicted on the basis of the evidence on record but merely summoned to face trial. After the parties had got opportunity to adduce evidence in sup port of their respective cases the sufficiency of the evidence to record a finding of guilt or otherwise could be examined. In my opinion, the judg ment of the learned Sessions Judge is wholly illegal and contrary to law and cannot stand judicial scrutiny even for a moment. Though as men tioned earlier, the applicant Ramesh Chandra Agarwal was party to the criminal revision and therefore he cannot get any benefit of the order passed therein as a result of the revision being allowed but as the judgment is wholly against the settled principles of law, its benefit even otherwise can not be given to the applicant. It will be grave miscarriage of justice to quash the proceedings against the applicant merely on the basis of the aforesaid judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Shri Pandy has also referred to a decision of this Court in Hindustan Over v. State, 1981 ACC 265. The authority cited is clearly distinguishable on facts. It was facts. It was found as a fact that there was no evidence to show that the sample was taken from a tin which was received by the dealer in its sealed state from Hindustan Liver Ltd. , or through distributor and on these findings, the proceedings against the manufacturers were quashed. Such is not the case here. The vendor has produced the cash memo or warranty which prima facie showed that he had purchased palm oil from the applicant Ramesh Chandra Agarwal. 7. In the Criminal Misc. Application No. 3162 of 1982 filed by Sukhdeo Rai Kapoor the plea taken by him is same and he also seeks to take benefit of the judgment given by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the manufacturer. The operative portion of the judgment in the revision merely shows that the order summoning the manufacturer alone had been set aside and nothing was said in favour of the vendor. For the reasons already mentioned, the vendor is also not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings against him on the strength of the aforesaid judgment. He will have to lead evidence in order to sustain the plea taken by him on the basis of Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and this can only be done before trial court. The defence of the vendor cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, both the petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed. Stay orders are vacated. Petitions dismissed. .;