B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THESE two revisions under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code) are directed against the orders dated 4th October, 1986 and 18th April, 1985, summoning the applicants under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple and they are these. It appears that proceedings under Section 7/16 of the Act were pending against the opposite parties for the sale of adulterated oil. But lateron it was stated by the opposite parties that the said oil was purchased from the applicant, who could be summoned under the provisions of Section 20-A of the Act. THE applicant was summoned by the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the order summoning the applicant was bad in law, inasmuch as the same was against the provisions of Section 20-A of the Act. It was further urged that the applicant has no connection nor he was concerned with that offence nor there was any evidence against the applicant, consequently the impugned orders are illegal. Reliance was placed on Gandharb Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1980 Vol. II, All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 159, Ram Dhan v. State of Punjab, 1980 Vol. II, All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 347, and Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 310. In order to determine the points urged by the learned counsel for the applicant it is better to have the statutory provisions of Section 20-A of the Act, which is as follows :- " 20-A. Power of Court to implead manufacturer etc :-Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being a manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the Court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution has been instituted against him under Section 20 ".
(3.) EX Abundanti Cautela, the relevant provisions of Section 20 may also be set out as follows :- " 20. Cognizance of trial of offences. (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act (not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A) shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the (Central Govt, or the State Govt.) or a person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central or the State Government ". From a bare reading of Section 20 it is clear that the provisions of this Section are mandatory. No Court can take cognizance of any offence under the Act, except in an offence under Section 14, where manufacturer, distributors and dealers are required to give warranty, and under section 14-A where the vendor should disclose the name etc. of the person from whom article of food was purchased except on a prosecution instituted by the persons or authorities mentioned in the Section. In other words the Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act in case the prosecution has been instituted by a person authorised by a general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government. Whereas Section 20-A of the Act enacts exception to the provisions of Section 20, Section 20-A provides that even though a prosecution might not have been instituted by a person authorised by the Central or the State Government, but if during the trial of an offence under the Act some offence is alleged to have been committed by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer, and on appreciation of evidence the Court is satisfied that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer was also concerned with that offence, in that event the Court would proceed against him as if a prosecution has been instituted against him under Section 20. It is not required under Section 20-A that there must be some positive evidence against the manufacturer, distributor or dealer only then the Court can proceed against him. But what is required is only that if there is some evidence just to indicate that he was also concerned with that offence. The word ' concern ' according to grammer is transitive verb and also a noun. When transitive verb it means to relate or belong to, to implicate, and when used as a noun it means that which concerns or belongs to one. According to Websters III New International Dictionary, the word ' concern ' as a noun means a connected relation, an active or real part, as of interest, something that relates or belongs to one. It is thus obvious that when a manufacturer or distributor has got just a slight relation, the court can proceed against him if some evidence discloses that he has got some concern in the matter. It is not necessary that the prosecution must have been lodged against him in view of section 20 by a person authorised for that purpose.;